-------
2018 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
August 2019
Appendix A, the CASTNET audit program includes annual independent ozone performance
evaluations (PE). The EEMS field scientists who conduct ozone PE maintain annual certification
from the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS). Audit methods and procedures
used are compliant with the National Performance Audit Program (NPAP). EEMS personnel
performed the NPAP Through-The-Probe (TTP) pollutant monitor audits following EPA's
Quality Assurance Guidance Document - Method Compendium - Field Standard Operating
Procedures (SOP) for the Federal PM2 5 Performance Evaluation Program and NPAP-TTP Audit
Standard Operating Procedures (SOP). All procedures and guidance documents used to perform
these audits can be found at the EPA OAQPS website:
https: //www3. epa.gov/ttn/amtic/npepq a. html
The NPAP is a QA program implemented by the OAQPS to conduct audits of gaseous air
pollutant monitors by standard methods throughout each region of the U.S. The method includes
introduction of National Institute of Standards and Traceability (NIST) audit gases to the station
monitors through the ambient sample inlet, including all filters and fittings. This method
evaluates measurement system accuracy through the entire sample train. The audit gas
concentrations are also measured and verified with an audit analyzer on-site. For gases other than
ozone the audit analyzer is calibrated at the time of the audit.
Performance audits are conducted using standards that are certified as currently traceable to the
NIST or another authoritative organization. All standards are certified annually with the
exception of ozone standards which are verified as level 2 standards at EPA regional labs at least
twice per year.
Site systems audits are intended to provide a qualitative appraisal of the total measurement
system. Site planning, organization, and operation are evaluated to ensure that good Quality
Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) practices are being applied. At a minimum the following
audit issues are addressed at each site systems audit:
• Site locations and configurations match those provided in the CASTNET QAPP.
• Meteorological instruments are in good physical and operational condition and are sited
to meet EPA ambient monitoring guidelines (EPA-600/4-82-060).
• Sites are accessible, orderly, and if applicable, compliant with OSHA safety standards.
• Sampling lines are free of leaks, kinks, visible contamination, weathering, and moisture.
• Site shelters provide adequate temperature control.
• All ambient air quality instruments are functional, being operated in the appropriate
range, and the zero air supply desiccant is unsaturated.
• All instruments are in current calibration.
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2018.docx
2-3
EEMS
-------
2018 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP-W-18-005
USEPA
August 2019
• Site documentation (maintenance schedules, on-site SOPs, etc.) is current and log book
records are complete.
• All maintenance and on-site SOPs are performed on schedule.
• Corrective actions are documented and appropriate for required maintenance/repair
activity.
• Site operators demonstrate an adequate knowledge and ability to perform required site
activities, including documentation and maintenance activities.
CASTNET ANNUAL REPORT 2018. docx
2-4
EEMS
-------
2018 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
August 2019
3.0 CASTNET Sites Visited in 2018
This report covers the CASTNET sites audited in 2018. Only those variables that were supported
by the CASTNET program were audited. From March through December 2018, EEMS
conducted field performance and systems audits at 37 monitoring sites. Meteorological sensors at
four of the sites were also audited. The locations, sponsor agency and dates of the audits along
with states and EPA Regions are presented in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1. Site Audits
Site ID
Sponsor
Agency
Site Location
State and EPA
Region
Audit dates
GRB411
NPS
Great Basin NP
NV/R9
3/26/2018
CAN407
NPS
Canyonlands NP
UT/R8
4/3/2018
JOT403
NPS
Joshua Tree NM
CA/R9
4/5/2018
IRL141
EPA
Indian River Lagoon
FL/R4
4/10/2018
SUM156
EPA
Sumatra
FL/R4
4/12/2018
PET427
NPS
Petrified Forest NP
AZ/R9
4/16/2018
GRC474
NPS
Grand Canyon NP
AZ/R9
4/17/2018
CHA467
NPS
Chiricahua NM
AZ/R9
4/19/2018
GAS153
EPA
Georgia Station
GA/R4
5/10/2018
SND152
EPA
Sand Mountain
AL/R4
5/11/2018
ESP127
EPA
Edgar Evins St. Park
TN/R4
5/12/2018
SPD111
EPA
Speedwell
TN/R4
5/13/2018
DIN431
NPS
Dinosaur NM
UT/R8
5/17/2018
FOR605
EPA
Fortification Creek
WY/R8
6/6/2018
NPT006
EPA
Nez Perce Tribe
ID / RIO
7/3/2018
MEV405
NPS
Mesa Verde NP
CO/R8
8/7/2018
ARE128
EPA
Arendtsville
PA/R3
8/18/2018
MKG113
EPA
M. K. Goddard St. Park
PA/R3
8/20/2018
KEF112
EPA
Kane Experimental Forest
PA/R3
8/21/2018
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2018.docx
3-1
EEMS
-------
2018 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
August 2019
Site ID
Sponsor
Agency
Site Location
State and EPA
Region
Audit dates
PSU106
EPA
Penn State University
PA/R3
8/22/2018
ANA115
EPA
Ann Arbor
MI/R5
9/10/2018
HOX148
EPA
Hoxeyville
MI/R5
9/11/2018
UVL124
EPA
Unionville
MI/R5
9/12/2018
CTH110
EPA
Connecticut Hill
NY/R2
9/25/2018
HWF187
EPA
Huntington Wildlife Forest
NY/R2
9/30/2018
HOW191
EPA
Howland AmeriFlux
ME/R1
10/2/2018
ASH135
EPA
Ashland
ME/R1
10/4/2018
WST109
EPA
Woodstock
NH/R1
10/8/2018
DEN417
NPS
Denali NP
AK/R10
10/10/2018
RED004
EPA
Red Lake Nation
MN/R5
10/22/2018
SAL133
EPA
Salamonie Reservoir
IN/R5
10/27/2018
CAT175
EPA
Claryville
NY/R2
11/7/2018
ABT147
EPA
Abington
CT/R1
11/8/2018
PNF126
EPA
Cranberry
NC/R4
11/15/2018
BEL 116
EPA
Beltsville
MD/R3
11/17/2018
DUK008
EPA
Duke Forest
NC/R4
12/5/2018
COW137
EPA
Coweeta
NC/R4
12/6/2018
In addition to the sites listed in Table 3-1 that were visited for complete systems and performance
audits, the 40 sites listed in Table 3-2 were visited to conduct TTP ozone and other pollutant gas
PE.
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2018.docx
3-2
EEMS
-------
2018 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
August 2019
Table 3-2. Site Ozone PE Visits
Site ID
Sponsor Agency
Site Location
State and EPA
Region
Audit dates
PAL 190
EPA
Palo Duro
TX/R6
3/9/2018
ZI0433
NPS
Zion NP Dalton's Wash
UT/R8
4/6/2018
BBE401
NPS
Big Bend NP
TX/R6
4/23/2018
ALC188
EPA
Alabama-Coushatta
TX/R6
4/26/2018
BAS601
EPA
Basin
WY/R8
6/4/2018
NEC602
EPA
Newcastle
WY/R8
6/7/2018
CVL151
EPA
Coffeeville
MS/R4
6/15/2018
CAD150
EPA
Caddo Valley
AR/R6
6/16/2018
CHE 185
EPA
Cherokee Nation
OK/R6
6/17/2018
CDZ171
EPA
Cadiz
KY/R4
6/23/2018
YEL408
NPS
Yellowstone NP
WY/R8
7/5/2018
GLR468
NPS
Glacier NP
MT/R8
7/6/2018
PND165
EPA
Pinedale
WY/R8
7/23/2018
PED108
EPA
Prince Edward
VA/R3
7/30/2018
VPI120
EPA
Horton Station
VA/R3
7/31/2018
CDR119
EPA
Cedar Creek St. Park
WV/R3
8/1/2018
PAR 107
EPA
Parsons
WV/R3
8/1/2018
CKT136
EPA
Crockett
KY/R4
8/2/2018
MCK131
EPA
Mackville
KY/R4
8/3/2018
MCK231
EPA
Mackville (precision site)
KY/R4
8/3/2018
CHC432
NPS
Chaco NHP
NM/R6
8/6/2018
CNT169
EPA
Centennial
WY/R8
8/30/2018
PRK134
EPA
Perkinstown
WI/R5
9/17/2018
ACA416
NPS
Acadia NP
ME/R1
10/3/2018
VTN140
EPA
Vincennes
IN/R5
10/19/2018
ALH157
EPA
Alhambra
IL/R5
10/20/2018
VOY413
NPS
Voyageurs NP
MN/R5
10/23/2018
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2018.docx
3-3
EEMS
-------
2018 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP-W-18-005
USEPA
August 2019
Site ID
Sponsor Agency
Site Location
State and EPA
Region
Audit dates
STK138
EPA
Stockton
IL/R5
10/25/2018
SAN189
EPA
Santee Sioux
NE/R7
10/26/2018
OXF122
EPA
Oxford
OH/R5
10/28/2018
LRL117
EPA
Laurel Hill St. Park
PA/R3
11/10/2018
BVL130
EPA
Bondville
IL/R5
11/11/2018
MAC426
NPS
Mammoth Cave NP
KY/R4
11/13/2018
DCP114
EPA
Deer Creek St. Park
OH/R5
11/14/2018
GRS420
NPS
Great Smoky Mountains NP
TN/R4
11/14/2018
BWR139
EPA
Blackwater NWR
MD/R3
11/16/2018
SHN418
NPS
Shenandoah NP - Big Meadows
VA/R3
11/19/2018
WSP144
EPA
Washington Crossing St. Park
NJ/R2
12/1/2018
QAK172
EPA
Quaker City
OH/R5
12/4/2018
CND125
EPA
Candor
NC/R4
12/5/2018
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2018docx
3-4
EEMS
-------
2018 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP-W-18-005
USEPA
August 2019
4.0 Performance Audit Results
This section provides the summarized performance evaluation (audit) results of each variable
challenged at each station visited except for trace gas audit results. CASTNET operates trace gas
monitors at several sites including three sites that are part of the NCORE Network (GRS420,
MAC426, and BVL130). Performance evaluation audits of the CASTNET trace gas monitors
were performed at BVL130, ROM206, PND165, HWF187, MAC426, GRS420, and PNF126 in
2018. Results of the NOy, CO, and S02 monitor audits for those sites have been uploaded to the
EPA AQS database and are not included in this report. All PE results for all monitors were within
acceptance limits.
Performance audit results are discussed for each variable in the following sections. Tables are
included to summarize the average and maximum error between the audit challenges and site
results as recorded by the on-site Data Acquisition System (DAS). Linear regression and percent
difference (% diff) calculation results are included where appropriate. Results that are outside the
CASTNET QAPP acceptance criteria are shaded in the tables.
The errors presented in the tables in the following sections are reported as the difference of the
measurement recorded by the DAS and the audit standard. Where appropriate, negative values
indicate readings that were lower than the standard, and positive values indicate readings that
were above the standard value. The errors appear to be random and without bias. The results are
also arranged by audit date. Viewing the results in this order helps to detect any errors that could
have been caused by the degradation or drift of the audit standards during the year. The audit
standards are transported and handled with care, and properly maintained to help prevent such
occurrences. No known problems with the standards were apparent during the year. All
standards were within specifications when re-certified at the end of the year.
Detailed reports of the field site audits, which contain all of the test points for each variable at
each site, can be found in the Appendices of each of the 2018 Quarterly reports. The variable
specific data forms included in Appendix A of each quarter's report contain the challenge input
values, the output of the DAS, additional relevant information pertaining to the variable and
equipment, and all available means of identification of the sensors and equipment for each site.
Table 4.1 summarizes the number of test failures by variable tested. All station data are recorded
from the station's primary datalogger.
CASTNET ANNUAL REPORT 2018. docx
4-1
EEMS
-------
2018 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
August 2019
Table 4-1. Performance Audit Results by Variable Tested
Variable Tested
Number of Tests
Number of tests
Failed
% Failed
Ozone
73
1
1.4
Flow Rate
37
2
5.4
Shelter Temperature (average)
35
1
2.8
Wind Direction Orientation Average
Error
4
0
0.0
Orientation Maximum Error
4
1
25
Wind Direction Linearity
Average Error
4
0
0.0
Linearity Maximum Error
4
1
25
Wind Direction Starting Torque
3
0
0.0
Wind Speed Low Range
Average Error
3
0
0.0
Low Range Maximum Error
3
1
33.3
Wind Speed High Range
Average Error
3
1
33.3
High Range Maximum Error
3
1
33.3
Wind Speed Starting Torque
3
1
33.3
All Temperature Sensors
40
4
10
Relative Humidity
4
0
0.0
Solar Radiation
4
0
0.0
Precipitation
4
0
0.0
DAS Analog to Digital
33
0
0.0
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2018.docx
4-2
EEMS
-------
2018 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
August 2019
4.1 Ozone
Seventy three ozone monitor audits were performed in 2018. All ozone challenges were
conducted to comply with the OAQPS NPAP-TTP Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) which
can be found at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/npapsop.html. Each ozone monitor was
challenged with ozone-free air and four up-scale concentrations. The ozone test gas
concentrations were generated and measured with a NIST-traceable photometer that was verified
as a level 2 standard by USEPA. The results of the ozone audits were uploaded to the AQS
database at the end of each quarter.
Results of all ozone audits performed are included in Table 4-2. Only one monitor (MEV405)
tested failed the annual PE with a level 2 test point difference above ± 3 ppb. It was noted that
there were wildfires in the area at the time of the audit and that the ozone inlet filter was visibly
contaminated. Tests with audit gas introduced upstream and downstream of the filter indicated a
large pressure drop across the filter and that audit gas was scrubbed by the filter.
Some monitors responded low to ozone-free air which may also contribute to low response at the
level 2 audit point.
Table 4-2. Performance Audit Results for Ozone
Site ID
Actual
Difference
for Level 2
Ozone
Average
(% diff)
for Levels
3, 4 and 6
0.5
Ozone
Maximum
(% diff)
for Levels
3, 4 and 6
0.7
Ozone
Slope
Ozone
Intercept
Ozone
Correlation
Standard
Date
PAL190
0.29
0.99943
0.50033
0.99998
1110
3/9/2018
GRB411
-1.28
-2.2
-4.3
1.00068
-1.01085
0.99992
1110
3/26/2018
CAN407
-0.56
-0.8
-1.5
0.99814
-0.26156
0.99998
1110
4/3/2018
JOT403
0.25
1
1.3
1.00731
0.20872
0.99999
1110
4/5/2018
ZI0433
0.54
1.2
1.9
1.00431
0.28805
0.99998
1110
4/6/2018
PET427
-0.27
-1.2
-1.8
0.99262
-0.14499
0.99999
1110
4/16/2018
GRC474
-0.49
-1.7
-2.2
0.99403
-0.42301
0.99995
1110
4/17/2018
CHA467
-1.13
-4
-5.6
0.98088
-0.96843
0.99997
1110
4/19/2018
DIN431
0.43
-0.5
-1.3
0.9845
0.64081
0.99995
1110
5/17/2018
B AS 601
-0.19
0.4
0.7
1.00258
0.02374
0.99999
1110
6/4/2018
NEC602
-1.79
-1.6
-3.9
1.01187
-1.41665
0.99994
1110
6/7/2018
NPT006
0.7
4.4
4.8
1.04879
-0.21685
0.99999
1110
7/3/2018
YEL408
0.41
8.1
9.3
1.09919
-0.95554
0.99997
1110
7/5/2018
GLR468
0.18
2
3
1.01182
0.37141
0.99997
1110
7/6/2018
PND165
-0.46
-2.7
-3.6
0.97782
-0.04803
0.99997
1110
7/23/2018
CHC432
-0.03
0.8
0.9
1.00902
-0.06102
1
1110
8/6/2018
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2018.docx
4-3
EEMS
-------
2018 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP-W-18-005
USEPA
August 2019
Site ID
Actual
Difference
for Level 2
Ozone
Average
(% diff)
for Levels
3, 4 and 6
-6.3
Ozone
Maximum
(% diff)
for Levels
3, 4 and 6
-10.7
Ozone
Slope
Ozone
Intercept
Ozone
Correlation
Standard
Date
MEV405
-5.76
0.98879
-2.76421
0.99885
1110
8/7/2018
CNT169
-0.08
2.2
3.1
1.03442
-0.47485
0.99997
1110
8/30/2018
IRL141
0.11
-0.6
-1.1
0.99181
0.26706
0.99998
1113
4/10/2018
BBE401
-1.46
-2.3
-3.9
0.99145
-0.70388
0.99993
1113
4/23/2018
ALC188
-0.68
-2
-3.6
1.00068
-0.87301
0.99996
1113
4/26/2018
SUM 156
-0.73
-1.6
-2.3
1.00155
-1.06424
0.99998
1113
4/28/2018
GAS 153
-2.46
-9.3
-11.8
0.93379
-1.32697
0.99996
1113
5/10/2018
SND152
-0.71
-1.4
-1.8
0.99526
-0.53683
0.99999
1113
5/11/2018
ESP127
-0.51
-2
-2.6
0.98976
-0.44844
0.99999
1113
5/12/2018
SPD111
0.17
-0.3
-1.3
0.99197
0.14502
0.99996
1113
5/13/2018
CVL151
-1.41
-1.6
-4.5
1.01283
-1.14547
0.99984
1113
6/15/2018
CAD150
-1.43
-5
-6.7
0.97654
-1.28958
0.99996
1113
6/16/2018
CHE185
0.17
-5
-5.6
0.94545
0.6716
0.99994
1113
6/17/2018
CDZ171
-0.96
-2.2
-3.9
0.99861
-1.01538
0.99999
1113
6/23/2018
PED108
-0.66
-2.3
-3.5
0.99518
-0.86871
0.99998
1113
7/30/2018
VPI120
-0.41
-0.4
-0.9
1.00707
-0.63289
1
1113
7/31/2018
CDR119
-0.69
-1.9
-2.6
0.98984
-0.45756
1
1113
8/1/2018
PAR107
-1.08
-2.4
-3.5
0.9906
-0.75436
0.99999
1113
8/1/2018
CKT136
-0.49
-2
-3
0.98748
-0.32891
0.99999
1113
8/2/2018
MCK131
-0.94
-1.6
-2
0.99623
-0.77359
1
1113
8/3/2018
MCK231
-0.53
-2.3
-3.2
0.98809
-0.56309
0.99999
1113
8/3/2018
ARE128
-0.52
-0.9
-2.2
1.00136
-0.47127
0.99999
1113
8/18/2018
MKG113
-0.12
-1.2
-1.5
0.98818
0.13975
0.99998
1113
8/20/2018
KEF112
-0.84
-2.5
-3.5
0.98924
-0.64896
0.99998
1113
8/21/2018
PSU106
-1.13
-5.1
-7.2
0.97946
-1.22536
0.99981
1113
8/22/2018
DEN417
-0.54
-0.8
-1.3
1.00172
-0.78036
0.99995
1113
10/10/2018
SAN 189
-1.2
-2.6
-3.2
0.98377
-1.01678
0.99983
1113
10/26/2018
ANA115
0.36
2
2.2
1.01785
0.03993
1
1114
9/10/2018
UVL124
-0.45
-1.7
-2.1
0.98778
-0.12076
0.99998
1114
9/12/2018
HOX148
-0.64
0.2
1.5
1.01978
-0.80351
0.99996
1114
9/13/2018
PRK134
0.14
0.8
1.2
1.01014
-0.05475
0.99998
1114
9/17/2018
VIN140
0.22
1.9
2.4
1.01647
0.04168
0.99998
1114
10/19/2018
ALH157
-0.05
-0.2
1.2
0.98941
0.29214
0.99997
1114
10/20/2018
VOY413
-0.1
0
-0.4
1.00442
-0.24024
1
1114
10/23/2018
STK138
-0.24
-2.7
-2.8
0.97103
0.13936
1
1114
10/25/2018
SAL133
0.48
3.7
4.1
1.04441
-0.41066
1
1114
10/27/2018
OXF122
-0.17
1.2
1.4
1.01638
-0.2987
0.99999
1114
10/28/2018
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2018docx
4-4
EEMS
-------
2018 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
August 2019
Site ID
Actual
Difference
for Level 2
Ozone
Average
(% diff)
for Levels
3, 4 and 6
-4.2
Ozone
Maximum
(% diff)
for Levels
3, 4 and 6
-4.6
Ozone
Slope
Ozone
Intercept
Ozone
Correlation
Standard
Date
DCP114
-0.59
1.01609
0.37187
0.99997
1114
11/14/2018
QAK172
-0.05
-0.4
-1
0.99049
0.12281
0.99998
1114
12/4/2018
COW 137
-0.29
-0.2
-0.5
0.99914
-0.12425
0.99999
1114
12/7/2018
CTH110
0.41
-1
-2
0.97547
0.59409
0.99997
1115
9/25/2018
HWF187
-0.1
-3.1
-3.5
0.96137
0.40858
1
1115
9/30/2018
HOW191
-0.24
-2.3
-2.6
0.97614
-0.04959
0.99999
1115
10/2/2018
ACA416
1.15
6.4
7.5
1.05148
0.62233
0.99999
1115
10/3/2018
ASH135
-0.44
-2.1
-2.4
0.97553
0.19571
0.99998
1115
10/4/2018
WST109
0.7
-2.1
-3.5
0.95382
1.30927
0.99999
1115
10/8/2018
ABT147
0.02
1.1
1.8
1.00265
0.47031
0.99995
1115
11/8/2018
LRL117
-0.63
-2.3
-3.2
0.99021
-0.71289
1
1115
11/10/2018
BVL130
-0.83
-2.9
-3.7
0.98685
-0.87873
0.99999
1115
11/11/2018
MAC 426
-0.63
-1.3
-1.9
0.99643
-0.55514
1
1115
11/13/2018
GRS420
1.17
2.1
2.3
0.96669
-0.34372
0.99997
1115
11/14/2018
PNF126
-0.15
1.3
3
1.01013
-0.33327
0.99988
1115
11/15/2018
BWR139
-1.39
0.3
2
1.03497
-1.85768
0.99998
1115
11/16/2018
BEL116
-0.58
-1.6
-2.5
0.99399
-0.56529
1
1115
11/17/2018
SHN418
0.78
-0.4
-0.8
0.98746
0.55993
0.99998
1115
11/19/2018
WSP144
-1.5
-3.1
-4.6
0.99263
-1.43695
1
1115
12/1/2018
CND125
-0.07
-2.6
-3.2
0.97813
-0.17465
0.99997
1115
12/5/2018
4.1.1 Ozone Bias
EEMS is aware of the EPA Technical Assistance Document "Transfer Standards for Calibration
of Air Monitoring Analyzers for Ozone'1 October 2013 which can be found at the AMTIC
website:
https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/qaqc/OzoneTransferStandardGuidance.pdf.
The document provides the rationale for standard photometer designation and the procedures
required to ensure photometer stability. The process involves comparisons to a higher level
standard (in this case a regional EPA level 1 standard) and also multiple comparisons on separate
days, known as "6x6 verification". As described in the document, once the transfer standard
comparison relationship with the level 1 standard has been established and the stability
requirements are met, the actual ozone concentration is calculated by:
1 _
Std. 03 conc. = — (Indicated 03 conc. — /)
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2018.docx
4-5
EEMS
-------
2018 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
August 2019
Where:
m = average slope
/ = average intercept
EEMS used this equation prior to 2017 with a rolling 6x6 average slope and intercept to correct
level 2 standard photometer measurements back to the regional EPA level 1 standard reference
photometer (SRP) for ozone PE audits. Since the technical assistance document also states that if
any adjustments are made to the transfer standard a new 6x6 verification is required, EEMS did
not adjust the physical settings (background and span) of the level 2 standards unless the
photometer did not meet the criteria (+/- 3 %) comparison to the level 1 standard. Thereby only
mathematical corrections were applied to the level 2 standard photometers.
Review of data prior to 2017 indicated that this procedure may have introduced a bias to the
standard since the level 2 standards are only compared to the level 1 SRP two or three times per
year. The rolling 6x6 slope and intercept averages may not have reflected the current relationship
between the level 2 and the level 1 standards. This bias was observed in the data from the 2016
ozone PE audits.
In 2017, EEMS elected to deviate from the EPA Technical Assistance Document and began
correcting the level 2 standard photometer using the most recent verification results rather than
the rolling 6x6 results. Ozone PE audit data are presented in Figures 4-1 and 4-2 which show the
actual concentration difference for level 2 audits, and the average percent differences of the ozone
PE audits greater than level 2 performed in 2018.
Figure 4-1. 2018 Ozone PE Actual Difference Level 2 Audits
Actual Difference for Level 2
~ ~
— ^^ ,* ^ * . » ~ » %J. t %
~~~ . ~ ~~~
©
Mar-2018 Apr 2018 May-2018 Jun-2018 Jul-2018 Aug-2018 Sep-2018 Oct-2018 Nov-2018 Dec-2018
CASTNET ANNUAL REPORT 2018. docx
4-6
EEMS
-------
2018 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
August 2019
Figure 4-2. 2018 Average % Difference Ozone Audits Greater Than Level 2
Percent Difference for Levels Greater than Level 2
10.0
8.0
(~) YEL408
4i 6.0
S
e
£
ig«-°
o
c
41 2,0
u
•
Q.
COO
o
2
C2.0
u
L
41
c
o
°6.0
~
~
+ ~
~
~ '
~
a ,
~ ~
~
~ ~ *~ ~
: ~~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ~ * ~
~ ~
~ ^
~
~~
r *
~
~
~
~
~ ~
~
-8.0
-10.0
Q GAS153
Mar-2018 Apr-2018 May 2018 Jun-2018 Jul-2018 Aug -2018
Date
Sep-2018 Oct-2018
Nov-2018
Dec-2018
When compared to 2017 data (Figures 4-3 and 4-4) the 2018 results appear to have a slight
negative bias.
Figure 4-3. 2017 Ozone PE Actual Difference Level 2 Audits
Actual Difference for Level 2
©
~~t 4* *
~ ~
4
~
~ ~
1*
~ ~ ~
~~ ~
Feb-2017 Mar-2017 Apr-2017 May-2017 Jun-2017 Jul-2017 Aug-2017 Sep-2017 Oct-2017 Nov-2017 Dec-2017
Date
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2018.docx
4-7
EEMS
-------
2018 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
August 2019
Figure 4-4. 2017 Average % Difference Ozone Audits Greater Than Level 2
Percent Difference for Levels Greater than Level 2
~ ~
~* ^
~~ ~
~ ~ ~
~
-V
~
+* ~
~~ ~
~~
~
~ ~
~
~
~~~
Feb-2017 Mar-2017 Apr-2017 May-2017 Jun-2017 Jul-2017 Aug-2017 Sep-2017 Oct-2017 Nov-2017 Dec-2017
Date
As further investigation, EEMS has compiled ozone audit results from audits performed for
clients other than CASTNET. The monitors include both SLAMS and Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) stations.
Similar to Figure 4-1, Figure 4-5 is a plot of the actual difference for audit level 2 concentrations
for audits performed at non-CASTNET sites in 2017 and 2018.
Figure 4-5. Level 2 Actual Difference for Non-CASTNET Data Collected
Non-CASTNET Data Level 2 Actual Difference
~
~
1/20/2018 4/30/2018
Date
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2018.docx
4-8
EEMS
-------
2018 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
August 2019
Figure 4-6 is a plot of the correlation between the EEMS standard and the site monitors for the
level 2 audit points at non-CASTNET sites for 2017 and 2018.
Figure 4-6. Correlation between Level 2 Data for Non-CASTNET Sites
The data indicate that there is no apparent bias at level 2 audit points at sites that are not part of
CASTNET. Figure 4-7 is a chart of the comparison of the EEMS standard to the site monitors for
all points greater than level 2. Again, there appears to be no bias.
Figure 4-7. Correlation between Levels Greater than Level 2 for Non-CASTNET Sites
Non-CASTNET Site Standard vs. Site for Levels Greater than Level 2
y = 0.9972x
Standard Value (ppb)
CASTNET ANNUAL REPORT 2018. docx
4-9
EEMS
-------
2018 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
August 2019
Figure 4-8 is the chart that compares the EEMS standard to the CASTNET monitors for all audits
in 2018 at audit level 2. This chart (similar to Figure 4-1) indicates that there may be a slight
negative bias with a slope of 0.9754.
Figure 4-8. Correlation between Level 2 Data for 2018 CASTNET Sites
2018 CASTNET Ozone Level 2 (Standard vs Site)
18
Charts for each audit level were generated that compare the EEMS standard to the CASTNET
monitors. At each increasing audit level, the slope of the comparison also increased. Figure 4-9
is the comparison for audit level 6.
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2018.docx
4-10
EEMS
-------
2018 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
August 2019
Figure 4-9. Correlation between Level 6 Data for 2018 CASTNET Sites
2018 CASTNET Ozone Level 6 (Standard vs Site)
119
~
Standard Value (ppb)
This seems to indicate that there is little to no bias at level 6. It has been observed that many
CASTNET monitors respond low when challenged with ozone-free air. In some cases, the EEMS
standard may respond with a measurement slightly above zero when measuring ozone-free air.
The data seem to indicate that the differences seen when measuring ozone-free air may be
contributing to the bias at the lower audit levels.
It is important to note that none of the audit results (with the exception of MEV405 discussed
separately) were above the acceptance criteria. It is also important to note that any observed bias
is approaching the noise level of the monitors and may not be significant.
4.2 Flow Rate
The controlled flow rate operated by the CASTNET filter pack system was audited at 37 sites in
2018. Two sites (UVL124 and ABT147) were outside the acceptance criterion of ± 5.0%. All
flow rates are in standard temperature and pressure (at 25 °C) (STP). A NIST-traceable dry-
piston primary flow rate device was used for the tests. The readings obtained from this primary
standard are the STP flow rate observed, while the DAS flow rate was read from the on-site data
logger.
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2018.docx
4-11
EEMS
-------
2018 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
August 2019
4.3 Shelter Temperature
At each site reporting ozone concentrations to AQS, the hourly average shelter temperature must
be maintained between 20 and 30 degrees C. Shelter temperature was audited at 35 of the sites
visited. All but one (CHC432) of the shelter temperature data accuracy results were found to be
within the acceptance limit. The method consisted of placing the audit standard in close
proximity (in situ) to the shelter temperature sensor and recording either instantaneous
observations of both sensors, or averages from both sensors. A Resistance Temperature Detector
(RTD) was used as the audit standard.
Nearly all of the site sensors were observed to lag behind the audit sensor during the rapid
changes in temperature inside the shelter as the air conditioning or heating cycled on and off. In
most instances the shelter temperature sensors never reached the minimum or maximum
temperature measured with the audit standard. This is not likely to add a large error to the hourly
averaged shelter temperature measurements. However, since the output of the shelter temperature
sensors follow a sine wave curve but the actual shelter temperature does not change following a
sine wave curve, if the shelter temperature is set near the lower or higher allowable limits (20 to
30 degrees C) the actual hourly averages may be lower or higher than those measured by the site
sensors.
The CASTNET QAPP does not make a distinction between shelter temperature and any other
temperature sensor regarding accuracy criteria. However the sensors were evaluated using a 2
degree C acceptance criterion. This criterion better follows the EPA OAQPS guidelines.
The shelter temperature and flow rate audit results are summarized in Table 4-3. Flow rate and
shelter temperature data are reported only for the sites that were visited for complete systems and
performance audits.
Table 4-3. Performance Audit Results Shelter Temperature, and Flow Rate
Site ID
Shelter Temp.
Average
Error (C)
Shelter T emp.
Maximum
Error (C)
STP Flow Rate
Primary
Standard (1pm)
STP Flow Rate
Site DAS
(1pm)
Flow Error
(% diff)
GRB411
0.03
0.19
3.01
3.00
-0.33
CAN407
0.72
1.10
2.93
3.01
2.73
JOT403
0.58
0.69
2.96
3.01
1.57
IRL141
0.40
0.83
1.52
1.50
-1.10
SUM156
0.02
1.39
1.53
1.50
-2.17
PET427
-0.18
-0.79
3.00
3.01
0.34
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2018.docx
4-12
EEMS
-------
2018 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP-W-18-005
USEPA
August 2019
Site ID
Shelter Temp.
Average
Error (C)
Shelter T emp.
Maximum
Error (C)
STP Flow Rate
Primary
Standard (1pm)
STP Flow Rate
Site DAS
(1pm)
Flow Error
(% diff)
GRC474
0.76
0.95
2.97
3.02
1.43
CHA467
0.50
0.99
3.01
3.02
0.49
GAS 153
0.53
1.08
1.55
1.50
-3.02
SND152
0.11
-0.77
1.52
1.50
-1.32
ESP127
0.24
0.37
1.54
1.50
-2.38
SPD111
0.34
0.89
1.52
1.50
-1.32
DIN431
0.31
0.57
3.00
3.00
-0.16
FOR605
3.07
3.05
-0.39
NPT006
0.25
0.47
2.95
3.00
1.66
CHC432
3.34
3.51
MEV405
-0.77
-1.80
2.92
3.03
3.74
ARE128
0.34
0.36
1.56
1.50
-3.85
MKG113
0.15
0.70
1.51
1.50
-0.88
KEF112
-0.04
-0.54
1.53
1.50
-2.39
PSU106
0.32
0.44
1.54
1.50
-2.81
ANA115
-0.19
-0.53
1.52
1.50
-1.53
HOX148
-0.08
0.58
1.47
1.50
2.27
UVL124
0.17
0.42
2.02
1.50
-25.74
CTH110
1.13
1.42
1.53
1.50
-2.17
HWF187
-0.32
-0.42
1.55
1.50
-3.23
HOW 191
0.77
1.03
1.53
1.53
0.00
ACA416
-0.24
-0.39
ASH135
0.60
0.66
1.52
1.50
-1.10
WST109
-0.42
-0.64
1.51
1.50
-0.44
DEN417
0.58
0.97
2.96
3.01
1.93
RED004
3.06
3.01
-1.53
SAL133
-0.10
-1.12
1.57
1.50
-4.67
CAT175
1.52
1.50
-0.99
ABT147
-0.08
-0.17
2.03
1.50
-26.11
PNF126
0.03
0.07
1.50
1.50
0.00
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2018docx
4-13
EEMS
-------
2018 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
August 2019
Site ID
Shelter Temp.
Average
Error (C)
Shelter T emp.
Maximum
Error (C)
STP Flow Rate
Primary
Standard (1pm)
STP Flow Rate
Site DAS
(1pm)
Flow Error
(% diff)
BEL116
-0.10
-0.11
1.48
1.50
1.12
DUK008
1.48
1.50
1.35
COW137
-0.31
1.16
1.54
1.50
-2.60
4.4 Wind Speed
The wind speed sensors at three sites equipped for meteorological measurements were audited.
The wind speed data accuracy results at ACA416 were above the acceptance limit. The results of
the wind speed performance audits are presented in Table 4-4. The state of Maine operates the
meteorological sensors at ACA416. Audits in previous years have indicated similar results. The
sensor appears to be accurate up to speeds above 20 m/s (over 45 mph) and then fails at higher
speeds. It is likely that the sensor is not tested by the state at high wind speeds and this is not a
concern.
4.4.1 Wind Speed Starting Threshold
The condition of the wind speed bearings were evaluated as part of the performance audits. The
data acceptance criterion for wind speed bearing torque is not defined in the QAPP. However,
Appendix 1: CASTNET Field Standard Operating Procedures, states that the wind speed
bearing torque should be < 0.2 g-cm. To establish the wind speed bearing torque criterion for
audit purposes the rational described in the QAPP for data quality objectives (DQO) was applied.
The QAPP states that field criteria are more stringent than DQO and established to maintain the
system within DQO. Typically field criteria are set at approximately one-half the DQO.
Therefore, 0.5 g-cm was used for the acceptance limit for audit purposes. This value is within the
manufacturers" specifications for a properly maintained system. One of the systems (BEL116)
was found to be above the acceptance limit.
4.5 Wind Direction
Two separate tests were performed to evaluate the accuracy of each wind direction sensor:
• A linearity test was performed to evaluate the ability of the sensor to function properly
and accurately throughout the range from 1 to 360 degrees. This test evaluates the sensor
independently of orientation and can be performed with the sensor mounted on a test
fixture.
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2018.docx
4-14
EEMS
-------
2018 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
August 2019
• An orientation test was used to determine if the sensor was aligned properly when
installed to measure wind direction accurately in degrees true. An audit standard
compass was used to perform the orientation tests.
The results of the wind direction performance audits are presented in Table 4-4. The average
errors for all sensors were within the acceptance limits.
4.5.1 Wind Direction Starting Threshold
The condition of the wind direction bearings were evaluated as part of the performance audits.
The data acceptance criterion for wind direction bearing torque is not defined in the QAPP.
However, Appendix 1: CASTNET Field Standard Operating Procedures, states that the wind
direction bearing torque should be < 10 g-cm for R. M. Young sensors. The manufacturer states
that a properly maintained sensor will be accurate up to a starting threshold of 11 g-cm. To
establish the wind direction bearing torque criterion for audit purposes the rational described in
the QAPP for data quality objectives (DQO) was applied. The QAPP states that field criteria are
more stringent than DQO and established to maintain the system within DQO. Typically field
criteria are set to approximately one-half the DQO. For audit purposes 20 g-cm was used for the
acceptance limit for R. M. Young sensors. Climatronics sensors typically have a lower starting
torque. For audit purposes a threshold of 10 g-cm was selected for Climatronics sensors. None
of the sensors tested were outside of acceptance limits for wind direction starting threshold. The
test results are provided in Table 4-4.
Table 4-4. Performance Audit Results for Wind Sensors
Wind Direction
Wind Speed
Orientation Error
Linearity Error
Starting
Torque
(g-cm)
Low Range Error
High Range Error
Starting
Torque
(g-cm)
Site
Ave
(deg)
Max
(deg)
Ave
(deg)
Max
(deg)
Ave
(rn/s)
Max
(rn/s)
Ave
(% diff)
Max
(% diff)
FOR605
3.0
5
CHC432
2.0
4
1.00
3
5
-0.04
-0.2
0.3
1.0
0.3
ACA416
3.8
6
1.88
5.6
8.5
0.13
0.6
-6.5
-26.3
0.2
BEL116
3.5
5
0.93
2.1
10
-0.04
-0.2
-0.1
-0.7
0.55
* Note: The wind systems acceptance criteria were applied to the average of the results. The data validation section of
the CASTNET QAPP states that if any wind direction or wind speed challenge result is outside the acceptance criterion
the variable is flagged.
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2018.docx
4-15
EEMS
-------
2018 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP-W-18-005
USEPA
August 2019
4.6 Temperature and Two-Meter Temperature
With the exception of DUK008, the EPA sponsored site temperature measurement systems
consist of a temperature sensor mounted on a tower approximately 9 meters above ground-level.
Sites operated by the Park Service have moved the temperature sensors to approximately two
meters above the ground (2-meter temperature). The DUK008 sensor is mounted on a walk-up
tower above treetop canopy at approximately 30 meters above ground.
The BLM has recently upgraded the temperature sensors at their sites to submersible RTD
sensors. However, the sensor operating at CHC432 is a combined relative humidity and
temperature sensors and not standalone RTD or encased thermistor temperature sensor. Due to
the design of the RH/Temperature sensor, it cannot be submerged in water baths in order to
challenge the sensor at different temperature audit levels. For that reason, the combination
RH/Temperature sensor was audited by placing the sensor in a watertight chamber (RH salt
chamber) and then placing the chamber in an ice-water bath, ambient bath, and hot water bath.
Therefore, the temperature audit results for site CHC432 are not directly comparable to audit
results of RTD or encased thermistor sensors.
All sites use shields to house the sensors that are either mechanically aspirated with forced air, or
naturally aspirated. In all cases the sensors were removed from the sensor shields, and placed in a
uniform temperature bath with a precision NIST-traceable RTD, during the audit.
A total of forty temperature sensors were tested, and four were found to be above acceptance
criterion. It should be noted that one of those sensors (CHC432) is a combination
RH/Temperature sensor as described above and cannot be submersed in a water-bath. The
average errors for all sensors are presented in Table 4-5.
4.6.1 Temperature Shield Blower Motors
All fourteen of the temperature systems with sensor shield blower motors (forced-air aspiration)
encountered during the site audits conducted during 2018 were found to be functioning.
4.7 Relative Humidity
The four relative humidity systems that were audited were tested with a combination of primary
standard salt solutions, and a NIST traceable transfer standard relative humidity probe. The
results of the average and maximum errors throughout the measurement range of approximately
30% to 95% are presented in Table 4-5. All humidity sensors were within the acceptable limits.
CASTNET ANNUAL REPORT 2018. docx
4-16
EEMS
-------
2018 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
August 2019
As in previous years, operation of both temperature and humidity sensors with respect to natural
or forced-air aspiration can vary between sites. At most EPA sponsored sites temperature and
humidity sensors are operating in naturally aspirated shields. At most NPS sponsored sites
temperature and humidity sensors are operating in shields designed to be mechanically aspirated
with forced-air blowers.
During humidity audit tests with the primary standard salt solutions, the sensors were removed
from the shields and placed in a temperature-controlled enclosure. During audit tests with the
transfer standard probe, the sensor and transfer were placed in the same ambient conditions.
Therefore the audit tests do not account for differences in the operation of the sensors due to the
different shield configurations.
Table 4-5. Performance Audit Results for Temperature and Relative
Site
Temperature
Ave. Error
(degC)
2 Meter
Temperature
Ave. Error
(degC)
Relative Humidity
Range 0 -100%
Ave. Error
(%)
Max. Error
(%)
GRB411
0.00
CAN407
-0.15
JOT403
-0.13
IRL141
-0.24
SUM156
-0.03
PET427
0.66
GRC474
0.09
CHA467
0.39
GAS153
-0.02
SND152
-0.04
ESP127
0.28
SPD111
-0.02
DIN431
0.01
FOR605
0.00
-1.5
-3.9
NPT006
-0.25
CHC432
-2.50
-3.1
-4.5
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2018.docx
4-17
EEMS
-------
2018 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP-W-18-005
USEPA
August 2019
Site
Temperature
Ave. Error
(degC)
2 Meter
Temperature
Ave. Error
(degC)
Relative Humidity
Range 0 -100%
Ave. Error
(%)
Max. Error
(%)
MEV405
0.20
ARE128
-0.32
MKG113
-0.14
KEF112
-0.07
PSU106
0.01
ANA115
-0.13
HOX148
-0.09
UVL124
-0.04
CTH110
-0.01
HWF187
0.09
HOW191
0.01
ACA416
-0.04
2.4
3.7
ASH135
-0.03
WST109
-0.04
DEN417
-0.18
RED004
-1.38
SAL133
0.03
CAT 175
-0.15
ABT147
-0.11
PNF126
-0.06
BEL116
-0.36
-0.08
2.6
5
DUK008
-0.53
COW137
0.00
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2018docx
4-18
EEMS
-------
2018 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
August 2019
4.8 Solar Radiation
The ambient conditions encountered during the audit visits were suitable (high enough light
levels) for accurate comparisons of solar radiation measurements. A World Radiation Reference
(WRR) traceable Eppley PSP radiometer and translator or a model 8-48 were used as the audit
standard system.
Four sites were tested. All sites had daytime average results that were within the acceptance
criterion. The results of the individual tests for each site are included in Table 4-6. The percent
difference of the maximum single-hour average solar radiation value observed during each site
audit is also reported in Table 4-6 although this criterion is not part of the CASTNET data quality
indicators. All maximum values were also within ±10%.
4.9 Precipitation
The four sites audited used a tipping bucket rain gauge for obtaining precipitation measurement
data. The audit challenges consisted of entering multiple amounts of a known volume of water
into the tipping bucket funnel at a rate equal to approximately 2 inches of rain per hour.
Equivalent amounts of water entered were compared to the amount recorded by the DAS. The
results are summarized in Tables 4-6. All sensors were within the acceptance criteria.
Table 4-6. Performance Audit Results for Solar Radiation and Precipitation
Site
Solar Radiation Error
Precipitation
Ave. Error
(% diff)
Daytime
Ave.
(% diff)
Std. Max.
Value
(w/m2)
Site Max.
Observed
(w/m2)
Max. Value
(% diff)
FOR605
-6.2
975
903
-7.4
-2.1
CHC432
-0.1
1029
1014
-1.5
1.8
ACA416
0.8
376
366
-2.7
-6.0
BEL116
4.6
494
512.3
3.7
2.0
4.10 Data Acquisition Systems (DAS)
All of the NPS sponsored sites visited utilized an ESC logger as the primary and only DAS. All
EPA sites visited operated Campbell Scientific loggers as their only DAS. The results presented
in table 4-7 include the tests performed on the logger at each site. The BLM sites utilize a
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2018.docx
4-19
EEMS
-------
2018 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
August 2019
Campbell Scientific CR1000. The CR1000 and some of the other loggers encountered are not
configured to allow analog tests.
4.10.1 Analog Test
The accuracy of each logger was tested on two different channels (if two channels were available
to be used) with a NIST-traceable Fluke digital voltmeter. At the EPA sponsored sites the
channels above analog channel 8 could not be tested since there were no empty channels
available to test. All data loggers were within the acceptance criterion of ± 0.003 volts.
4.10.2 Functionality Tests
Other performance tests used to evaluate the DAS included the verification of the date and time.,
All site data loggers were found to be set to the correct date and within ±5 minutes per the
acceptance criterion for time. The NPS sponsored site data loggers were found to be set to the
correct date and within ±5 minutes of the acceptance criterion for time. However, most of the
NPS clocks were found to be 1 to 3 minutes different than the standard, whereas the EPA
sponsored site clocks were all within 2-3 seconds. The Campbell Scientific logger clocks at the
EPA sites are synchronized with the internet, whereas the ESC loggers at the NPS sites are not.
Table 4-7. Performance Audit Results for Data Acquisition Systems
Date
Site
Analog Test Error (volts)
Date
Correct
(Y/N)
Time
Error
(minutes)
Low Channel
High Channel
Average
Maximum
Average
Maximum
3/26/2018
GRB411
Y
-1.38
4/3/2018
CAN407
0.0001
0.0002
Y
1.00
4/5/2018
JOT403
0.0000
0.0002
Y
-0.95
4/10/2018
IRL141
0.0000
-0.0002
Y
0.00
4/12/2018
SUM156
0.0000
0.0001
Y
0.00
4/16/2018
PET427
0.0000
0.0003
Y
-0.33
4/17/2018
GRC474
0.0003
0.0006
Y
-1.37
4/19/2018
CHA467
0.0003
0.0004
Y
0.25
5/10/2018
GAS153
0.0001
0.0003
Y
0.00
5/11/2018
SND152
0.0000
0.0001
Y
0.00
5/12/2018
ESP127
-0.0001
-0.0002
Y
0.00
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2018.docx
4-20
EEMS
-------
2018 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP-W-18-005
USEPA
August 2019
Date
Site
Analog Test Error (volts)
Date
Correct
(Y/N)
Time
Error
(minutes)
Low Channel
High Channel
Average
Maximum
Average
Maximum
5/13/2018
SPD111
-0.0001
-0.0002
Y
0.00
5/17/2018
DIN431
0.0002
0.0003
Y
1.57
8/6/2018
CHC432
0.0003
0.0008
Y
-0.60
8/7/2018
MEV405
-0.0003
-0.0004
Y
-0.22
8/18/2018
ARE128
0.0000
0.0001
Y
0.00
8/20/2018
MKG113
-0.0001
-0.0002
Y
0.00
8/21/2018
KEF 112
0.0000
0.0001
Y
0.00
8/22/2018
PSU106
0.0000
-0.0002
Y
0.00
9/10/2018
ANA115
0.0002
0.0005
Y
0.00
9/11/2018
HOX148
0.0001
0.0002
Y
0.03
9/12/2018
UVL124
0.0000
0.0001
Y
0.00
9/25/2018
CTH110
-0.0001
-0.0002
Y
0.00
9/30/2018
HWF187
Y
-0.25
10/2/2018
HOW191
0.0000
0.0001
Y
-0.02
10/3/2018
ACA416
-0.0003
-0.0004
Y
-1.33
10/4/2018
ASH135
0.0000
0.0001
Y
0.07
10/8/2018
WST109
-0.0001
-0.0002
Y
-0.03
10/10/2018
DEN417
0.0001
0.0002
Y
2.67
10/22/2018
RED004
-0.0017
-0.0021
Y
0.00
10/27/2018
SAL 133
-0.0001
-0.0002
Y
0.00
11/8/2018
ABT147
-0.0001
-0.0001
Y
0.02
11/15/2018
PNF126
-0.0001
-0.0001
Y
0.00
11/17/2018
BEL116
0.0000
-0.0001
Y
0.05
12/6/2018
COW137
-0.0001
-0.0005
Y
-0.02
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2018docx
4-21
EEMS
-------
2018 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP-W-18-005
USEPA
August 2019
5.0 Systems Audit Results
The following sections summarize the site systems audit findings and provide information
observed regarding the measurement processes at the sites. Conditions that directly affect data
accuracy have been reported in the previous sections. Other conditions that affect data quality
and improvements to some measurement systems or procedures are suggested in the following
sections.
5.1 Siting Criteria
All of the sites that were visited have undergone changes during the period of site operation
which include population growth, road construction, and foresting activities. None of those
changes were determined to have a significant impact on the siting criteria that did not exist when
the site was initially established.
Some sites that are located in state and national parks are not in open areas, and have trees within
the 50 meter criterion established in the QAPP. Given the land use and aesthetic concerns, these
sites are acceptable and represent an adequate compromise with regard to siting criteria and the
goal of long-term monitoring. For sites that measure ozone data designated as NAAQS
compliant, these sites may violate recommended siting criteria in 40 CFR Part 58.
The CASTNET QAPP is currently being revised to more closely follow 40 CFR Part 58
Appendix E. The audit program will incorporate those changes when they are implemented.
5.2 Sample Inlets
With consideration given to the siting criteria compromises described in the previous section, all
but four sites (LAV410, YEL408, VOY413, and CDR119) visited in 2018 have ozone monitor
sample trains that are sited properly and in accordance with the CASTNET QAPP. All ozone
sample inlets are currently being evaluated with respect to obstructions above the inlet. The
acceptance criterion requires that there should be no obstructions (including trees) within a 22.5
degree angle (object distance must be at least two times the height) above the ozone inlet. There
are trees that violate the 22.5 degree sample inlet requirement at the four sites listed above.
Ozone sample inlets are between 3 and 15 meters. With the exception of one site (WNC429)
Teflon tubing of the proper diameter is used for the ozone inlets. The ozone sample train at
WNC429 is primarily glass with an exhaust fan downstream of the ozone sample port. The ozone
analyzer at WNC429 (South Dakota) is operated by the State.
CASTNET ANNUAL REPORT 2018. docx
5-1
EEMS
-------
2018 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP-W-18-005
USEPA
August 2019
With the exception of WNC429, the ozone zero, span, and precision calibration test gases are
introduced at the ozone sample inlet, through all filters and the entire sample train. All sample
trains are comprised of only Teflon fittings and materials. Sample inlet particulate filters of 5
micron are present at most sites.
The dry deposition filter packs are designed to sample from 10 meters. Most of the filter pack
sample lines are also Teflon. Inline filters are present in the sample trains to prevent moisture and
particulates from damaging the flow rate controller.
5.3 Infrastructure
Sites continue to be improved by repairing the site shelters which had deteriorated throughout the
years of operation. The installation and upgrade of the data loggers and replacement of degrading
signal cables, has been very beneficial to the network. A few of the site shelters are still in need
of repair, but overall the condition of the sites has improved again during the past year.
5.4 Site Operators
Generally the site operators are very conscientious and eager to complete the site activities
correctly. They are willing to, and have performed sensor replacements and repairs at the sites
with support provided by the Wood and ARS field operations centers. In some cases, where
replacements or repairs were made, documentation of the activities was not complete, and did not
include serial numbers of the removed and installed equipment.
Many of the CASTNET site operators also perform site operator duties for the National
Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP). Many of the NPS site operators also perform other
air, or environmental quality functions within their park. All are a valuable resource for the
program.
Still many of the site operators have not been formally trained to perform the CASTNET duties
by either Wood or ARS. They had been given instructions by the previous site operators and over
the phone instructions from the field operation centers at Wood and ARS.
CASTNET ANNUAL REPORT 2018. docx
5-2
EEMS
-------
2018 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP-W-18-005
USEPA
August 2019
5.5 Documentation
There were some documentation problems with the Site Status Report Forms (SSRF) completed
by the site operators each week during the regular site visits. Common errors included improper
reporting of "initial flow", "final flow", and "leak check" values.
The NPS site operator procedures are well developed and readily accessible at all of the NPS sites
visited. There is an electronic interface (DataView 2) available to view, analyze, and print site
data. There are electronic "checklists" for the site operator to complete during the site visits;
however, all of the CASTNET filter pack procedures are not included in the "checklists". Flow
rates and leak check results are not recorded electronically.
An electronic logbook is included in the interface software. This system permits easy access to
site documentation data. Complete calibration reports have been added to the system and
accessible through the site computer, however the reports available on-site are not up to date.
5.6 Site Sensor and FSAD Identification
Continued improvement has also been made in the area of documentation of sensors and systems
used at the sites. It is important to maintain proper sensor identification for the purposes of site
inventory and to properly identify operational sensors for data validation procedures. Many
sensors have had new numbers affixed for proper identification.
Where possible the identification numbers assigned (serial numbers and barcodes) are used within
the field site audit database for all the sensors encountered during the site audits. The records are
used for both the performance and systems audits. If a sensor is not assigned a serial number by
the manufacturer, that field is entered as "none". If it is unknown whether an additional client ID
number is assigned to a sensor, and a number is not found, the client ID is also entered as "none".
If it is typical for a manufacturer and/or client ID number to be assigned to a sensor, and that
number is not present, the field is entered as "missing". If either the serial number or the client
ID numbers cannot be read, the field is entered as "illegible". An auto-number field is assigned
to each sensor in the database in order to make the records unique.
CASTNET ANNUAL REPORT 2018. docx
5-3
EEMS
-------
2018 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP-W-18-005
USEPA
August 2019
6.0 Summary and Recommendations
The CASTNET Site Audit Program has been successful in evaluating the field operations of the
sites. The results of performance and systems audits are recorded and archived in a relational
database, the Field Site Audit Database (FSAD). CASTNET site operations are generally
acceptable and continue to improve. Some differences between actual site operations and
operations described in the QAPP have been identified and described. Procedural differences
between EPA and NPS sponsored sites have also been described.
As discussed previously the shelters have received some much needed attention. It was also
observed that improvements were made to the shelter temperature control systems. As a
requirement in 40 CFR Part 58 for ozone monitoring, shelter temperature is an important variable.
Additional improvement could be made to accurately measure and report shelter temperature.
The previous paragraphs and sections included some recommendations for improving the field
operations systems. One recommendation for improving the audit program is presented in the
following section.
6.1 In Situ Comparisons
An improvement to the audit procedures designed to evaluate the differences in measurement
technique would be to develop an "In Situ" audit measurement system. This would require a
suite of sensors that would be collocated with the site sensors. Ideally the audit sensors would
address the inconsistent sensor installations observed throughout the network. By deploying a
suite of certified NIST traceable sensors installed and operating as recommended by the
manufacturer and to EPA guidelines, subtle differences in the operation of the existing
CASTNET measurement systems could be evaluated. The "In Situ" sensors would be operated at
each site for a 24 hour period and the measurements would be compared to the CASTNET
measurements. A portable system of meteorological sensors would be beneficial for
meteorological measurement evaluations particularly at BLM sponsored sites. EEMS is still
pursuing this type of audit system.
CASTNET ANNUAL REPORT 2018. docx
6-1
EEMS
-------
2018 Annual Report — CASTNET
Contract No. EP- W-18- 005
USEPA
August 2019
7.0 References
Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards AMTIC website, SOP and guidance
documents: www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/
Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems: Volume II - Ambient
Air Specific Methods - EPA.
Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems: Volume IV -
Meteorological Measurements - EPA.
Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET) Quality Assurance Project Plan (2003) -
EPA.
Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems: Volume I: - A Field
Guide To Environmental Quality Assurance - EPA.
Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems: Volume II: Parti
Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program Quality System Development - EPA.
Sensitivity of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration multilayer model to
instrument error and parameterization uncertainty: Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol.
105. No. D5, March 16, 2000.
Wind System Calibration, Recommended Calibration Interval, Procedure, and Test
Equipment: November 1999, R. M. Young Company
Bowker, G.E., Schwede, D.B.; lear, G.G.; Warren-Hicks, W.J., and Finkelstein, P.L., 2011.
Quality assurance decisions with air models: a case study of imputation of missing input data
using EPA multi-layer model. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 222, 391e402.
CASTNET .ANNUAL REPORT 2018.docx
7-1
EEMS
-------
APPENDIX 1
Audit Standards Certifications
-------
FINAL SUMMARY AUDIT REPORT FLOW BASED
EEMS Van-2
Site Name: EPA-07 Audit Date: 10/30/2018
Parameter
NPAP Lab
Response
(ppm)
Station Response
(ppm)
Percent
Difference
Actual
Difference
(ppm)
Pass/Fail Warning
Ozone
Pre Zero
0.0000
0.0000
0.0
0.0000
Audit Level 6
N/A
Audit Level 4
N/A
Audit Level 3
N/A
Audit Level 2
N/A
Post Zero
Carbon Monoxide
Pre Zero
-0.002
0.014
0.0161
Pass
CO Audit level 4
2.203
2.203
0.0
0.0005
Pass
CO Audit level 4
1.521
1.528
0.5
0.0070
Pass
CO Audit level 3
0.606
0.610
0.6
0.0037
Pass
CO Audit level 2
0.092
0.127
38.0
0.0351
Pass Warning
CO Audit level 1
0.033
0.031
-7.0
-0.0023
Pass
Post Zero
-0.002
0.004
0.0061
Pass
Oxides of Nitrogen
Pre Zero
0.0000
0.0003
0.0003
Pass
NO Audit Point #1
0.0649
0.0654
0.8
0.0005
Pass
NO Audit Point #2
0.0448
0.0452
0.8
0.0004
Pass
NO Audit Point #3
0.0179
0.0181
1.1
0.0002
Pass
NO Audit Point #4
0.0027
0.0038
40.7
0.0011
Pass
NO Audit Point #5
0.0010
0.0010
0.0
0.0000
Pass
Post Zero
-0.0001
0.0001
0.0002
Pass
Pre Zero
0.0000
0.0004
0.0004
Pass
NOx Audit Point #1
0.0649
0.0652
0.5
0.0003
Pass
NOx Audit Point #2
0.0448
0.0450
0.3
0.0001
Pass
NOx Audit Point #3
0.0179
0.0179
0.0
0.0000
Pass
NOx Audit Point #4
0.0027
0.0038
40.7
0.0011
Pass
NOx Audit Point #5
0.0010
0.0010
0.0
0.0000
Pass
Post Zero
-0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
Pass
Pre Zero
0.0000
0.0004
0.0004
N02 Audit level 5
0.0438
0.0432
-1.3
-0.0006
Pass
N02 Audit level 4
0.0017
0.0187
-1.6
0.0170
Pass
N02 Audit level 2
0.0045
0.0044
-2.2
-0.0001
Pass
N02 Audit level 1
0.0000
0.0000
0.0
0.0000
Pass
Post Zero
-0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
Pass
Converter Efficiency N02 level 5
99.2%
Pass
Converter Efficiency N02 level 4
99.7%
Pass
Converter Efficiency N02 level 2
102.2%
Pass
Converter Efficiency N02 level 1
100.0%
Pass
Sulfur Dioxide
Pre Zero
-0.0001
-0.0004
-0.0003
Pass
S02 Audit level 6
0.0664
0.0647
-2.6
-0.0017
Pass
S02 Audit level 5
0.0459
0.0451
-1.8
-0.0008
Pass
S02 Audit level 4
0.0183
0.0175
-4.2
-0.0008
Pass
S02 Audit level 2
0.0028
0.0032
12.9
0.0004
Pass
S02 Audit level 1
0.0010
0.0005
-51.0
-0.0005
Pass
Post Zero
-0.0001
-0.0002
-0.0001
Pass
-------
FINAL SUMMARY AUDIT REPORT CO BASED
EE MS Van-2
Site Name: EPA-07 Audit Date: 10/30/2018
Parameter
NPAP Lab Response
(ppm)
Station Response
(ppm)
Percent
Difference
Actual
Difference
(ppm)
Pass/Fail Warning
Ozone
Pre Zero
Audit Level 6
Audit Level 4
Audit Level 3
N/A
N/A
N/A
Audit Level 2
N/A
Post Zero
Carbon Monoxide
Pre Zero
-0.0014
0.014
0.01538
Pass
CO Audit level 4
CO Audit level 4
CO Audit level 3
2.1844
1.5098
0.5971
2.203
1.528
0.610
0.9
1.2
2.2
0.01859
0.01825
0.01289
Pass
Pass
Pass
CO Audit level 2
CO Audit level 1
0.1248
0.0247
0.127
0.031
2.1
23.6
0.00262
0.00582
Pass
Pass
Post Zero
-0.0022
0.004
0.00619
Pass
Oxides of Nitrogen
Pre Zero
-0.00004
0.0003
0.0003
Pass
NO Audit Point #1
0.06437
0.0654
1.6
0.0010
Pass
NO Audit Point #2
0.04449
0.0452
1.5
0.0007
Pass
NO Audit Point #3
0.01759
0.0181
2.9
0.0005
Pass
NO Audit Point #4
0.00368
0.0038
3.3
0.0001
Pass
NO Audit Point #5
0.00073
0.0010
37.0
0.0003
Pass
Post Zero
-0.00006
0.0001
0.0002
Pass
Pre Zero
-0.00004
0.0003
0.0003
Pass
NOx Audit Point #1
0.06437
0.0652
1.3
0.0008
Pass
NOx Audit Point #2
0.04449
0.0450
1.0
0.0005
Pass
NOx Audit Point #3
0.01759
0.0179
1.8
0.0003
Pass
NOx Audit Point #4
0.00368
0.0038
3.3
0.0001
Pass
NOx Audit Point #5
0.00073
0.0010
37.0
0.0003
Pass
Post Zero
-0.00006
0.0002
0.0003
Pass
Pre Zero
0.00000
0.00010
0.00010
Pass
N02 Audit level 5
0.04332
0.04323
-0.2
-0.00009
Pass
N02 Audit level 4
0.01882
0.01870
-0.6
-0.00012
Pass
N02 Audit level 2
0.00445
0.00440
-1.1
-0.00005
Pass
N02 Audit level 1
0.00168
0.00170
1.2
0.00002
Pass
Post Zero
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Pass
Converter Efficiency N02 level 5
99.2%
Pass
Converter Efficiency N02 level 4
99.7%
Pass
Converter Efficiency N02 level 2
102.2%
Pass
Converter Efficiency N02 level 1
100.0%
Pass
Sulfur Dioxide
Pre Zero
-0.00004
-0.00040
-0.00036
Pass
S02 Audit level 6
0.06588
0.06467
-1.8
-0.00121
Pass
S02 Audit level 5
0.04553
0.04506
-1.0
-0.00047
Pass
S02 Audit level 4
0.01801
0.01753
-2.7
-0.00048
Pass
S02 Audit level 2
0.00376
0.00316
-16.0
-0.00060
Pass
S02 Audit level 1
0.00074
0.00049
-33.8
-0.00025
Pass
Post Zero
-0.00007
-0.00024
-0.00017
Pass
-------
FINAL SUMMARY AUDIT REPORT CO BASED
EEMS Van-3
Site Name: EPA R-7 Audit Date: 10/31/2018
Parameter
NPAP Lab Response
(ppm)
Station Response
(ppm)
Percent
Difference
Actual
Difference
(ppm)
Pass/Fail Warning
Ozone
Pre Zero
Ozone audit level 6
N/A
Ozone audit level 5
N/A
Ozone audit level 4
N/A
Ozone audit level 3
N/A
Ozone audit level 2
N/A
Post Zero
Carbon Monoxide
Pre Zero
0.0029
-0.001
-0.00411
Pass
CO Audit level 4
2.6153
2.589
-1.0
-0.02634
Pass
CO Audit level 4
1.5272
1.516
-0.7
-0.01077
Pass
CO Audit level 3
0.5585
0.559
0.0
-0.00003
Pass
CO Audit level 2
0.1518
0.156
2.9
0.00433
Pass
CO Audit level 1
0.0506
0.056
10.7
0.00542
Pass
Post Zero
-0.0022
0.004
0.00623
Pass
Oxides of Nitrogen
Pre Zero
0.00008
0.00000
-0.00008
Pass
NO Audit Point #1
0.07625
0.07810
2.4
0.00185
Pass
NO Audit Point #2
0.04453
0.04520
1.5
0.00067
Pass
NO Audit Point #3
0.01628
0.01650
1.4
0.00022
Pass
NO Audit Point #4
0.00442
0.00450
1.8
0.00008
Pass
NO Audit Point #5
0.00147
0.00150
2.0
0.00003
Pass
Post Zero
-0.00007
0.00000
0.00007
Pass
Pre Zero
0.00009
0.00000
-0.00009
Pass
NOx Audit Point #1
0.07758
0.07730
-0.4
-0.00028
Pass
NOx Audit Point #2
0.04530
0.04470
-1.3
-0.00060
Pass
NOx Audit Point #3
0.01657
0.01630
-1.6
-0.00027
Pass
NOx Audit Point #4
0.00450
0.00430
-4.4
-0.00020
Pass
NOx Audit Point #5
0.00150
0.00140
-6.7
-0.00010
Pass
Post Zero
-0.00007
-0.00010
-0.00003
Pass
Pre Zero
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
N02 Audit level 5
0.04929
0.04880
-1.0
-0.00049
Pass
N02 Audit level 4
0.01798
0.01750
-2.7
-0.00048
Pass
N02 Audit level 2
0.00370
0.00350
-5.4
-0.00020
Pass
N02 Audit level 1
0.00136
0.00100
-26.5
-0.00036
Pass
Post Zero
0.00000
-0.00010
-0.00010
Pass
Converter Efficiency N02 level 5
101.1%
Pass
Converter Efficiency N02 level 4
102.9%
Pass
Converter Efficiency N02 level 2
102.9%
Pass
Converter Efficiency N02 level 1
100.0%
Pass
Sulfur Dioxide
Pre Zero
0.00009
-0.0003
-0.0004
Pass
S02 Audit level 6
0.08262
0.0795
-3.8
-0.0032
Pass
S02 Audit level 5
0.04825
0.0457
-5.3
-0.0026
Pass
S02 Audit level 4
0.01765
0.0166
-6.2
-0.0011
Pass
S02 Audit level 2
0.00479
0.0037
-23.2
-0.0011
Pass
S02 Audit level 1
0.00160
0.0011
-31.3
-0.0005
Pass
Post Zero
-0.00007
-0.0003
-0.0002
Pass
-------
Ozone Certification Records
TEI # 49CPS-70008-364
EEMS# 01110
Van 2
EPA file
date
start time
slope
intercept correlatioin
location
C1030001
30-Oct-18
12:36
0.99854
-0.01471 1
R-7
C1030002
30-Oct-18
13:47
0.99987
0.07221 1
R-7
C1030003
30-Oct-18
14:54
1.00049
0.02946 1
R-7
C1030004
30-Oct-18
16:01
1.00194
-0.06198 1
R-7
C1030005
30-Oct-18
17:08
1.00053
0.03421 1
R-7
C1030006
30-Oct-18
18:14
1.00346
-0.08366 1
R-7
C1030007
30-Oct-18
19:21
1.00366
0.03229 1
R-7
C1030008
30-Oct-18
20:27
1.00361
0.04543 1
R-7
C1030009
30-Oct-18
21:34
1.00196
0.07279 1
R-7
C1030010
30-Oct-18
22:40
1.00424
-0.08910 1
R-7
AVG =
1.001513
0.006656 1
-------
Ozone Transfer Standard Verification Summary Report
sr^>
\^t
PROl^'
Of
<7/
iff
SESD Proiect #:
Test #:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4 Science and Ecosystem Support Division
Enforcement and Investigations Branch
Superfund and Air Section
980 College Station Rd.
Athens, GA 30605
18-0504
#1
"as found"
EPA
Standard
EPA Region 4
Keith Harris
NIST
SRP
10
Guest Test Status:
Guest Known Offset:
Agency:
Contact:
Make:
Model:
S/N:
GUEST
instrument
EEMS
Eric Hebert
Thermo
49CPS
517112167
PASS
D\t I 5
Level 2 Slope Intercept
Averages: ( 1.0047X 0.0888J
Rz High 03 Lower Os
0.999995 452 0
Upper ToleranceN^ 1_Q3Q0
LowerTole ranee: 0.9700 -3.0000
Upper
Lower
Range
Range
Cycle Start Date 1 Time
File Name
Slope
Intercept
R2
{ppb 03)
{ppb 03>
6/11/18 5:44 PM
Cal18061100.xls
1.0048
-0.1497
0.9999968
447
-0.10
6/11/18 7:21 PM
Cal18061101.xls
1.0043
0.1144
0 9999992
451
-0.07
6/11/18 8:58 PM
Cal18061102.xls
1.0028
0.0908
0.9999930
452
0.18
6/11/18 10:34 PM
Cal180611Q3.xls
1.0054
0.1292
0.9999961
452
-0.21
6/12/18 12:11 AM
Cal18061200.xls
1.0059
-0.0218
0.9999917
453
-0.21
6/12/18 1:48 AM
Cal18061201.xls
1.0046
0.2092
0.9999906
453
-0.05
6/12/18 3:25 AM
Cal18061202.xls
1.0051
0.2493
0.9999961
454
-0.02
Comments:
Instrument tested as found.
Ozone calibration factors at time of test:
03 BKG:-0.2 ppb 03COEF; 1.015
Verification Expires on:
Keith Harris
/
1
Date
°£//!//%
Page 1 of 1
SESDFORM-046-R0
-------
Ozone Transfer Standard Verification Summary Report
Q
.36.
II. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4 Science and Ecosystem Support Division
Enforcement and Investigations Branch
Superfund and Air Section
980 College Station Rd.
Athens, GA 30605
EPA
GUEST
Standard
Instrument
Agency:
EPA Region 4
EE MS
Contact:
Mike Crowe
Eric Hebert
Make:
NISI
Thermo
Model:
SRP
49CPS
S/N:
10
517112167
SESD Proiect#: 18-0684
Guest Test Status:
PASS
Test#: #1
Guest Known Offset:
0
"as found"
and "as left"
Level 2
Slope
Intercept
R*
High 03
Lower 03
Averages:
1.0040
-0 2990
0.9999948
466
0
Upper Tolerance:
1.0300
3.0000
LowerTolerance:
0.9700
-3 0000
Upper
Lower
Range
Range
Cycle Start Date / Time
File Name
Slope
Intercept
R2
(ppb Oj)
(ppb 03)
9/6/18 4:30 PM
Cal18090600.xls
1.0011
-0 3694
0.9999963
462
0.01
9/6/18 6:08 PM
Call 8090601.xls
1.0023
-0.2375
0.9999955
467
-0 03
9/6/18 7:46 PM
Cal18090602.xls
1.0041
-0.2949
0.9999984
466
-0.12
9/6/18 9:23 PM
Cal18090603.xls
1.0049
-0.3866
0 9999898
466
0.14
9/6/18 11:01 PM
Cal18090604.xls
1.0036
0.0000
0.9999939
468
-0.17
9/7/18 12:39 AM
Cal18090700.xls
1.0068
-04757
0.9999934
466
0 17
9/7/18 2:17 AM
Cal18090701.xls
1.0057
-0.3287
0.9999966
466
0 13
Comments:
Instrument tested as found.
Ozone calibration factors at time of test:
03BKG: -0.2 ppb 03 COEF: 1.015
Verification Expires on:
September 7, 2019
Mike Crowe
Date
ft
"T "7
Page 1 of 1
SESDFORM-046-R0
-------
Ozone Transfer Standard Verification Summary Report
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4 Science and Ecosystem Support Division
Enforcement and Investigations Branch
Superfund and Air Section
980 College Station Rd.
Athens, GA 30605
EPA
GUEST
Standard
Instrument
Agency:
EPA Region 4
EEMS
Contact:
Mike Crowe
Eric Hebert
Make:
NIST
Thermo
Model:
SRP
49i
S/N:
10
1180030022
SESD Proiect#: 18-0685
Guest Test Status:
PASS
Test #: #1
Guest Known Offset:
0
"as left"
Level 2
Slope
Intercept
RJ
High 03
Lower 03
Averages:
1.0029
0.1098
0.999998
466
0.02
Upper Tolerance:
1 0300
3.0000
LowerTolerance:
0.9700
-3.0000
Upper
Lower
Range
Range
Cycle Start Date 1 Time
File Name
Slope
Intercept
Rz
(ppb 03)
(PPb 03>
9/6/18 4:30 PM
CaI18090600.xls
1.0029
-0.0058
0 9999992
462
0,01
9/6/18 6:08 PM
Cal1809G601.xls
1.0015
0.1241
0.9999981
467
-0.03
9/6/18 7:46 PM
Cal180906Q2.xls
1.0032
0.0080
0.9999991
466
-0.12
9/6/18 9:23 PM
Cal18090603.xls
1.0032
0.0787
0.9999960
466
0.14
9/6/18 11:01 PM
Cal18090604.xls
1.0016
0.3333
0.9999989
468
-0.17
9/7/18 12:39 AM
Cal18090700.xls
1.0045
0.0649
0 9999976
466
0.17
9/7/18 2:17 AM
Cal18Q90701.xls
1.0036
0.1654
09999983
466
0.13
Comments:
New Level 2 standard. Prior to test one instrument was adjusted to more closely match the SRP.
Ozone calibration factors at time of test: 03 BKG -0.4 ppb 03 COEF: 0.990
Instrument within tolerance.
Verification Expires on: September 7, 2019
Page 1 of 1
SESDFORM-046-RQ
-------
Ozone Transfer Standard Verification Summary Report
$
I 33
I.
w *. r v
PRoVt^
o\
¥-\
Ol
<*7
SESD Project #:
Test #:
U, S, Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4 Science and Ecosystem Support Division
Enforcement and Investigations Branch
Superfund and Air Section
980 College Station Rd.
Athens, GA 30605
#1
"as found"
EPA
Standard
EPA Region 4
Mike Crowe
NISI
SRP
10
Guest Test Status:
Guest Known Offset:
Agency:
Contact:
Make:
Model:
SIM:
GUEST
Instrument
EEMS
Eric Hebert
Thermo
49i
1180030022
PASS
0
fr
" ottu-
C y/Cy.
and "as left"
Level 2
Slope
Intercept
R'
High 03
Lower 03
Averages:
0.9984
0.2709
0.9999986
363
0
Upper Tolerance:
1.0300
3,0000
LowerTolerance:
0.9700
-3.0000
Upper
Lower
Range
Range
Cycle Start Date / Time
File Name
Slope
Intercept
R2
(PPb 03)
(ppb 03)
6/11/19 5:01 PM
Cal19061101.xls
0.9984
0.2057
0.9999981
360
0.24
6/11/19 6:37 PM
Cal190611Q2.xls
0,9975
0.3485
0.9999992
363
-0.02
6/11/19 8:13 PM
Call 9061103.xls
0.9992
0.1985
0.9999984
363
0.12
6/11/19 9:50 PM
Cal19061104.xls
0.9980
0.3826
0.9999987
364
-0.14
6/11/19 11:26 PM
Cal19061105.xls
0.9991
0.0000
0.9999981
364
-0.13
6/12/19 1:02 AM
Cal19061200.xls
0.9983
0.3572
0.9999990
365
0.12
6/12/19 2:39 AM
Cal1906l201.xls
0.9986
0.4040
0.9999988
365
-0.05
Comments:
Instrument tested as found.
Ozone calibration factors at time of test:
03 BKG: -0.4 ppb 03 COEF: 0.990
Instrument within tolerance
Verification Expires oi^:
June 12,2020
September 12, 2019
(For NPAP use)
Mike Crowe
Date l.
Page 1 of 1
SESDFORM-046-R0
-------
Ozone Transfer Standard Verification Summary Report
z I (k I
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4 Science and Ecosystem Support Division
Enforcement and Investigations Branch
Superfund and Air Section
980 College Station Rd.
Athens, GA 30605
SESD Project#:
Test #:
19-0229
# 1
"as left"
EPA
Standard
EPA Region 4
Keith Harris
IN I ST
SRP
10
Guest Test Status:
Guest Known Offset:
Agency:
Contact:
Make:
Model:
S/N:
GUEST
Instrument
EEMS
Eric Hebert
TEI
49 iQps
1180930075
PASS
&
£>UtS"
/
Level 2
Slope
Intercept
R>
High 03
Lower 03
Averages:
1.0080
-0,4021
d.9999972
465
0
Upper Tolerahce:
1.0300
3.0000
LowerToleranVe:
0.9700
-3.0000
/
Upper
Lower
Range
Range
Cycle Start Date / Time
File Name
Slope
Intercept
R2
{ppb 03)
(ppb Os)
3/25/19 4:13 PM
Cal19032501.xls
1.0014
-0.5404
0.9999967
463
-0.14
3/25/19 5:54 PM
Cal19032502.xls
1.0020
-0.5316
0.9999971
465
-0.06
3/25/19 7:31 PM
Cai19032503.xls
1.0132
-0 4537
09999977
467
-0.17
3/25/19 9:09 PM
Cal19032504.xls
1.0121
-0.3056
09999979
466
-0 20
3/25/19 10:45 PM
Cal19032505.xls
1.0140
0.0000
0.9999975
464
0.12
3/26/19 12:22 AM
Cal19032600.xls
1.0057
-0 4967
0.9999960
465
0.05
/ 3/26/19 1:59 AM
Cal19032601.xls
1.0073
-0.4869
0.9999976
465
0.14
Comments:
New Level 2 standard Prior to test one instrument was adjusted to more closely match the SRP.
Ozone calibration factors at time of test: 03 BKG 0.31 ppb 03 COEF: 1.013
Verification Expires on:
March 26, 2020
Keith Harris
/)
Date '' ~ >/< £/
Page 1 of 1
SESDFORM-046-R0
-------
Date
2/8/2018 - - Calculation of correction factor for RH standard with most recent certification of EEMS Hygropalm
TMI Cert date = 1/24/2018
TMI
EEMS
STD
Hygropalm
Cert#
A2722301
01225
diff
corrected
15.0
15.3
-0.3
14.9
25.0
25.2
-0.2
25.1
35.0
35.3
-0.3
35.5
33.0
32.6
0.4
32.7
50.0
49.4
0.6
50.0
75.0
73.6
1.4
74.9
RH 01225
2018 correction:
slope=
0.9705
intercept=
0.8783
corr =
0.9999229
2/8/2018
At Date translator =
01220
Kestrel
EEMS 2/8/2018
EEMS
EEMS
EEMS
Hygropalm
Van 2
AER
01225 ID =
01220
2093323
raw corrected
raw
corrected
raw
corrected
raw
corrected
66.6 67.72
66.1
67.39
66.3
66.54
#DIV/0!
71.2 72.46
71.8
73.36
72.2
72.89
#DIV/0!
95.7 97.70
95.0
97.67
94.4
96.77
#DIV/0!
45.6 46.08
44.9
45.17
50.2
49.21
#DIV/0!
4.0 3.22
5.2
3.57
6.1
1.76
#DIV/0!
-0.90
-1.88
-4.80
#DIV/0!
-0.90
-1.88
-4.80
#DIV/0!
-0.90
-1.88
-4.80
#DIV/0!
Thermocouple offset =
N/A
N/A
N/A
POST CALIBRATION CHECK
-0.90
-1.88
-4.80
#DIV/0!
slope =
0.954301
0.9293934
#DIV/0!
intercept =
1.789636
4.4601953
#DIV/0!
correlation =
0.9998
0.9986
#DIV/0!
-------
Certificate Number
A2722301
Issue Date: 01/24/18
Certificate of Calibration
Page 1 of 2
Customer: ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING & MEASUREMENT SERVICES
1128 NW 39TH DRIVE
GAINESVILLE, FL 32605
FEDEX
Description: THERMO HYGROMETER
Manufacturer: ROTRONIC
Model Number: HYGROPALM
Serial Number: 40861 002/124431
Technician: STEVE TORRES
On-Site Calibration: ~
Comments:
Calibration Date:
Calibration Due:
Procedure:
Temperature:
Humidity:
01/24/2018
01/24/2019
jii-m-hTgrothermographs
Rev: 2/22/2011
71 F
38 % RH
As Found Condition: IN TOLERANCE
Calibration Results: IN TOLERANCE
Limiting Attribute:
of Standards and Technology [NIST) or other Nat.onal
compared to consensus standards, standard, derived from natural physical constants, ratio measurements or
cor^li a nc^a re^ba seTon ^ i i^w'thln specifiedl'limits wM no^ticti™ntf,e'^eas u reme nt^6"^9 e fa c'or Statements of
operations, meeting the pmclpllf,of |I^OSOOI an^alignedwrthtts pertinent fMuTrements fhfs'^b ?°25:2D05.|S wntteri in a language relevant to laboratory
with the requirements of ISO/IEC 17025:2005 and TMI's Quality Manual, QluM calibration is within the current Scope of Accreditation and complies
administrative purposes and do nSt imply Mn^inue^ca nforma nceta spet'f cations"6 appearing on the certlflcate or label are determined by the client for
This certificate shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written permission of Technical Maintenance, Inc.
Measurements not currently on TMI's Scope of Accreditation are identified with an asterisk.
FRANK BAHMANN, BRANCH MANAGER
Calibration Standards
Asset Number Manufacturer Model Number
0710649 THUNDER SCIENTIFIC 2500ST
Scott Chamberlain, QUALITY MANAGER
Date Calibrator!
8/26/2017
Cal Due
3/25/2018
T
Mi
Rev II
7/28/17
Technical Maintenance, Inc.
12530 TELECOM DRIVE. TEMPLE TERRACE. FL 33637
Phone 813-978-3054 Fax 813-978-3758
www.tmicalibration mm
ANSI/NCSL Z540-I-1994
-------
Certificate Number
A2722301
Issue Date: 01/24/18
Parameter
Temperature Accuracy
Temperature Accuracy
Temperature Accuracy
Humidity Accuracy
Humidity Accuracy
Humidity Accuracy
Certificate of Calibration
Data Sheet
Nominal
Minimum
Maximum
As Found
As Left
15.0
14.6
16.4
15.3
15,3
25.0
24 6
25.4
25 2
25.2
35.0
34.6
35.4
35.3
35.3
33.0
31.4
34 6
326
32.6
50.0
48.4
51.6
43.4
49 4
75,0
73.4
76.6
73.6
73.6
Page 2 of 2
Unit ADJ/FAIL
C
C
C
%
%
%
'l*T
o,^7c?sr
"2.
/=/ 2<9(2
Tmt
X Technical Maintenance, Inc.
12530 TELECOM DRIVE, TEMPLE TERRACE. FL 33637 ANSKNCSLZ540-M994
ne: 813-978-3054 Fax 81
www.trnicalibration.fvnm
Re* jJ Phone: 813-978-3054 Fax 813-978-3758
-------
Date
2/13/2018 - - Calibration and verification of three RTD meters with most recent certification of EEMS RTD
TMI Cert data -- 1/24/2018
TMI
EEMS
STD
RTD
Cert#
A2380069
01229
diff corrected
-25.00
-25.04
0.040 -25.024
0.00
0.01
-0.010 0.030
100.00
99.96
0.040 99.994
150.00
149.96
0.040 150.000
RTD 01229
2018 correction:
slope= 0.9998626
intercept= | -0.019771
corr=
1.0000000
4^ 2/13/2018
At Date
EEMS 2/13/2018
RTD
01229
raw corrected
0.06 0.08
12.45 12.47
21.37 21.39
29.83 29.85
40.14 40.17
48.38 48.41
24.97 24.99
slope =
intercept =
correlation =
EEMS
raw
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
RTD
RTD
01226
01228/3
EEMS
EEMS
van 2
van 1
corrected
raw
corrected
raw
correctec
#DIV/0!
0.04
0.08
-0.01
0.08
#DIV/0!
12.43
12.49
12.45
12.43
#DIV/0!
21.36
21.52
21.48
21.29
#DIV/0!
29.82
29.86
29.99
29.86
#DIV/0!
40.13
40.16
40.38
40.17
#DIV/0!
48.37
48.40
48.67
48.40
#DIV/0!
24.96
25.00
25.10
25.00
1.00010
1.007566
-0.03870
-0.0921
1.0000
1.0000
-------
Certificate Number
A2721736
Issue Date: 01/24/18
Certificate of Calibration
Page 1 of 2
Customer: ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING & MEASUREMENT SERVICES
1128 NW 39TH DRIVE
GAINESVILLE, FL 32605
FEDEX
P.O. Number:
ID Numbed: EEMS 01229
Description: DIGITAL STIK THERMOMETER
Manufacturer: FLUKE
Model Number: 1551A EX
Serial Number: 3275143
Tech nician: STEVE TO R R ES
On-Site Calibration: ~
Comments: TUR is 2 to 1
Calibration Date
Calibration Due\
Procedure:
Temperature:
Humidity:
01/24/2018
01/24/2019
Si A EX,52A EX
Rev: 11/1/2010
71 F
38 % RH
As Found Condition: IN TOLERANCE
Calibration Results: IN TOLERANCE
J-JmitingAttribute:
co m pa rid to sens nd °f Ca"brat,0n IS dlrect comparison to a known standard, derived from natural physical constants, ratio measurements or
llncertfnll®s ar® e*Pressed as expanded uncertainty values at an approximately 95% confidence level using a coverage factor of k=2 Statements of
compliance are based on test results falling within specified limits with no reduction by the uncertainty of the measurement.
TWS Quality Systems accredited to I SO/I EC 17025:2005 and AN5I/NCSL Z540-1-1994 ISO/IEC 17025 2005 is written in a language relevant to laboratory
k,;Tqm t™"*' ™' ™"""ion 11 '"'n:n ,h* sco»»" «"•«««" «»«
This certificate shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written permission of Technical Maintenance, Inc.
Measurements not currently on TMI's Scope of Accreditation are identified with an asterisk.
FRANK BAH MANN, BRANCH MANAGER
Scott Chamberlain, QUALITY MANAGER
Calibration Standards
Asset Number
899976
Manufacturer
FLUKE
Model Number
5618B-12
Date Calibrated
12/6/2016
Cal Due
2/21/2018
A11967
HART SCIENTIFIC
9140
3/30/2017
5/8/2018
A88072
FLUKE/HART
1502A
12/14/2017
3/20/2018
B7B759
HART SCIENTIFIC
9103
11/28/2017
11/28/2018
tMt
J Technical Maintenance, Inc.
12530 TELECOM DRIVE, TEMPLE TERRACE FL 33637 ansi/ncsl ZS40-J-1994
Rev. 11 Phone: 813-978-3054 Fax 813-978-3758
7/28/17 www.tmicalibration.com
-------
Certificate Number
A2721736
Issue Date: 01/24/18
Certificate of Calibration
Data Sheet
Parameter
Nominal
Minimum
Maximum
As Found
As Left
Unit
Temperature Accuracy
-25 00
¦25 05
-24 95
-25.04
-25,04
°c
Temperature Accuracy
0.00
-0.05
0.05
0.01
0 01
°c
Temperature Accuracy
100.00
99.95
100.05
99.96
99.96
°c
Temperature Accuracy
150.00
149.95
150.05
149.96
149 96
°c
Page 2 of 2
Unit ADJ/FAIL
\r
^ O<2.29
~ ~ O, O ( ?7? /
- t, oocjoo
z/2^/lccB
Us
Rev. 11
7/28/17
Technical Maintenance, Inc.
12530 TELECOM DRIVE. TEMPLE TERRACE. FL 33637
Phone: 813-978-3054 Fax 813-978-3758
www.tmlcalibration.com
ANS1/NCSL Z540-I-I994
-------
THE eppley laboratory INC
Phon^mMzmo FShnd USA 02840
4U1-847-103l Email: mfo@eppleylab.com
I o£ 2,
Instrument:
Procedure:
Precis,on Spectral Pyranometer, Model PSP, Serial Number 34341 F3
o 11
THe Eppley UaboratoW ,„c,s Quafity
Transfer Standard, Eppley Precision Spec,ra, pyranome,er Mode] psp ^
Results: Sensitivity: S = 9.41 ftV/Wm"2
Uncertainty. U9S-±0.91% (95% confidence level k=7)
Resistance: 699 Qat23°C
Traceability:
Due Date:
Customer;
Date of Test: February ] 4,2018
This calibration is traceable to the World Radiation Reference (wrrhi
f',dardsell:caJibra
-------
P^ErfPMeY Lab°r"°ry, Ino,
12 Sheffield Ave.
Phone # 401-847-1020
Fed. ID No. 05-0136490
PACKING LIST
so. No. 65150
2/13/2018
Name / Address
EEMS
Att: Eric Hebert
1128 NW 39th Drive
Gainesville, FL 32605
Ship To
EEMS
Att: Eric Hebert
1128 NW 39th Drive
Gainesville, FL 32605
P.O...
ShipDate 2/23/2018
Ship Via
Recalibration Model 8-4
8
-3824
3
Recalibration of {Model PSP^h.
fu.Pi
-------
EPLAB
THE EPPLEY LABORATORY, INC.
12 Sheffield Avenue, PO Box 419, Newport, Rhode Island USA 02840
Phone: 401.847,1020 Fax: 401.847,1031 Email: info@eppIeylab.com
Calibration Certificate
r
e
Instrument:
Procedure:
Black & White Pyranometer, Model 8-48, Serial Number 23824 J r \ H ^
I his pyranometer was compared in Eppley s Integrating Hemisphere according to
procedures described in ISO 9847Section 5.3.1 and Technical Procedure, TP01 of
The Eppiev Laboratory, Inc.'s Quality Assurance Manual on Calibrations.
Transfer Standard: Eppley Black & White Pyranometer, Model 8-48, Serial Number 14061
Results: Sensitivity: S = 8.82 / Wm"2
Uncertainty: U95 = ±0,91 % (95% confidence level, k=2)
Resistance: 347 fi at 23°C
Traceability:
Due Date:
Date of Test:
February 13, 2018
This calibration is traceable to the World Radiation Reference (WRR) through
comparisons with Eppley's AHF standard self-calibrating cavity pyrheliometers
which participated in the Twelfth International Pyrheliometric Comparisons (IPC
XII) at Davos, Switzerland in September-October 2015. Unless otherwise stated in
the remarks section below or on the Sales Order, the results of this calibration are
"AS FOUND / AS LEFT".
Eppley recommends a minimum calibration cycle of five (5) years but encourages
annual calibrations for highest measurement accuracy.
Customer:
EEMS
Gainesville, FL
-V/j/^M
Signatures: In Charge of Test:
Eppley SO: ' 6t
Date of Certificate' February 14, 2018
Remarks:
7^"
Reviewed by:
End of Report
-------
R.M. Young Company
2801 Aero Park Drive
Traverse City, Michigan 49686 USA
P
3
o 12-
O ^
Nominal
27106D Output
Motor RPM
Frequency
Calculated
Indicated
RPM
Hz (1)
RPM (2)
RPM (3)
18802
p] Clockwise and Counterclockwise rotation verified.
300
50
300
300
2700
450
2700
2700
5100
850
5100
5100
7500
1250
7500
7500
10200
1700
10200
10200
12600
2100
12600
12600
15000
2500
15000
15000
18811
Clockwise ancTCounterclockwise rotation verified.
30.0
5
30.0
30.0
150.0
25
150.0
150.0
300.0
50
300 0
300.0
450.0
75
450.0
450.0
600.0
100
600.0
600.0
750.0
125
750.0
750.0
990.0
165
990.0
990.0
(1) Measured output frequency of YOUNG model 27106D standard anemometer attached to motor
shaft.
(2) YOUNG model 27106D produces 10 pulsed per revolution of the anemometer shaft.
(3) Indicated on the Control Unit LCD.
* Indicates out of tolerance.
I New Unit
0 Service / Repair Unit
[T| Mo calibration adjustments required
I i As found
I I As left
1 Traceable frequency meter used for calibration:
Model: 34405A
Serial Number: 53020093
Date 11 JULY 2018
Calibration Interval One year
Tested By:
METEOROLOGICAL INSTRUMENTS
Tei 231-946-3980 Fax:231-946-4772 Email' met.safes@youngusa.Com Website-youngusa.com
ISO 9001:2008 CERTIFIED
-------
R.M. Young Company
2801 Aero Park Drive
Traverse City, Michigan 49686 USA
YOU IMG
CERTIFICATE OF CALIBRATION AND TESTING
m
Mode!: 18802/18811 Description: Anemometer Drive - 2 motors, 20 to 15,000 RPM
Serial Number: CA04353 [18802 comprised of 1882Mi Control Unit and 18830A Motor Assembly)
(18811 comprised of 18820A Control Unit and 18831A Motor Assembly)
R. M. Young Company certifies that the above equipment was inspected and calibrated prior to shipment in
accordance with established manufacturing and testing procedures. Standards established by R.M. Young
Company for calibrating the measuring and test equipment used in controlling product quality are traceable to the
National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Nominal
27106D Output
Motor RPM
Frequency
Calculated
Indicated
RPM
Hz (1)
RPM (2)
RPM (3)
18802
E Clockwise and Counterclockwise rotation verified.
300
50
300
300
2700
450
2700
2700
5100
850
5100
5100
7500
1250
7500
7500
10200
1700
10200
10200
12600
2100
12600
12600
15000
2500
15000
15000
18811
GO Clockwise and Counterclockwise rotation verified.
30.0
5
30.0
30.0
150.0
25
150.0
150.0
300.0
50
300.0
300.0
450.0
75
450.0
450.0
600.0
100
600.0
600.0
750.0
125
750.0
750.0
990.0
165
990.0
990,0
(1) Measured output frequency of YOUNG model 27106D standard anemometer attached to motor
shaft,
(2) YOUNG model 27106D produces 10 pulsed per revolution of the anemometer shaft.
(3) Indicated on the Control Unit LCD.
* Indicates out of tolerance.
Q New Unit 0 Service / Repair Unit I I As found
m No calibration adjustments required [I] As left
Traceable frequency meter used for calibration:
Model: 34405A Serial Number: 53020093
Date: 19 April 2018
Calibration Interval: One year
Tested By:
M
ETEOROLOGICAL INSTRUMENTS
Tel: 231-946-3980 Fax:231-946-4772 Email: met.sales@youngusa.com Website: youngusa.com
ISO 9001:2008 CERTIFIED
-------
Warren-Knight Instrument Company
2045 Bennett Road
Philadelphia, PA 19116
Phone: 215-464-9300; Fax: 215^64-9303
Web: htto://www. wairenind.com
-LlZ
\JCl^
Calibration Data Record
Customer Name
Manufacturer
Serial Number
Item Name
Model
Calibration Date
Temperature:. £ J* '
\S~ 2S
?a^ 1 '
Humidity:
'¥TT
Calibration Frequency
Job Card Number
Customer Reference Number
Date of Cerclfi cat:.
Measurement Standards
Theodolite Wild T-3 S/N 18801 _Calibration 01/19/18 Due 01/19/19 NISi Number 738/229329-83^26/223395
Optica! Wedge K&E 71-7020 S/N 5167 Calibration; 02/12/14- Due 2/12719, N15T NunSt»tjaijWOB£-89 731/221617
Vanes
Direction
; Degree]
Teteranos
(Minute)
Compass Neeffle Error
| Minute)
Pivot in line with Circle/Sights ~ Pass ~ Fail
0
+/-3Q
ftteedie
4S
+/-30
Pivot Sharpness
~ Pass ~ Fail
90
+/-30
Straightness (+/-15 Minutes)
~ Pass ~ Fail
135
+/-30
Balance *.
~ Pass ~ Fail
ISO
+/-30
Lifter Function
~ Pass ~ Fail
225
+/-3Q
Aiimuth Ri'ne
270
+/-30
Control Knob Function
~ Pass ~ Fail
315
+/-30
Pinion Gear
~ Pass ~ Fail
Graduation Clarity
~ Pass ~ Fail
Graduation Sesst'nan 1 minute in any position
~ Pass ~ Fait
Levei Bubble
Bubble in Leve)
~ Pass ~ Fail
Physical Condition
~ Pass ~ Fail
Pass/Reparr/Replacg
Pass
M/A
Replace I Repair |
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
o
~
~
n
~
~
| Needle ~ Sharpen u Magnetize
Cap with Jewel
Pivot ~ Sharpen
Level ~ Remount
; North Sight
North Sight Block
South Sight
South Sight Block
Vane Spring
Drive
Control Knob Assembly
Cover Glass
Cover Giass Gasket
Clsmp S crew
Pinion Gear
Compass Ring
Final Report
Varies
Pivot in line with Circle/Sights
"Wl
Pass ~ Fail
pivot Sharpness
Straightness (+/-15 Minutes)
gj gass ~ Fail
CB'pass ~ Fail
Balance
I [? Pass ~ Fail
Lifter Function
O^PsSS ~ Fail
Azimuth Ring
Control Knob Function
Pinion Gear
UKpsss ~ Fail
tjy^sss ~ Faii
O^ass ~ Fail
Direction
(Defiree)
ToSersnce
(Minute)
+/-3Q
+/-30
+/-30
+/-30
V-30
+/-30
•*•/- 30
+/-30
Cemsiass Needle Error
{Minute}
<3°
<3a
ye
30
'3<7
G ra d u ation Clarity
Graduation less than 1 minute in any position
Level Bubble
Pass ~ Faif
Bubble in Level
~ Fail
Pass ~ Fail
John Noga, Quality Assurance
Doc templates 2/wk-40-1360 survey compass calibration record
-------
( (
Warren-Knight Instrument Company
2045 Bennett Road
Philadelphia, PA 19116
Phone: 215-464-9300; Fax: 215^64-9303
Web: http://www.warrenind.com
Ui
&
CERTIFICATION OF CALIBRATION AND CONFORMANCE
We hereby certify that the equipment below has been manufactured and/or inspected by
standards traceable to NIST, Calibration of the specified instrument has been performed in
compliance with ANSI Z540-1 requirements. It is warranted that the equipment has been
calibrated to be in full conformance with the drawings and specifications of the instrument.
Calibration tests were performed on the material specified below and were in accordance with all
applicable quality assurance requirements with data on file at our facility.
Ineffective if graduation ring is not set to 0 degrees.
Customer Name:
Environmental Engineering & Measurement Services, Inc.
Purchase Order #:
Instrument:
Ushikata Tracon S-25 Compass
Serial Number:
Quantity: ^
-r r i
Calibration Due:
05/2018 /
May 10,2018
L
f
u
/?
ohn Noga. Quality Control
Measurement Staadards
rReodOtRTftild T-3 SN 18801 Calibration 02 06 15 Due 02 06 16 NIST Number 738/229329-83 738/223398
Optical Wedge K&E 71-7020 SN 5167 Calibration 02/12/14 Due 02/12/19 731/244084-89 731/2216117
X \WI DOCUMENTS WORKING\emarkowski\Cahbration Certs\EE & MS\EE & MS Cert S25 Compass SN 199578 05-10-18.doc
-------
US
Warren-Knight Instrument Company
2045 Bennett Road
Philadelphia, PA 19116
Phone: 215-464-9300; Fax: 215-464-9303
Web: htm :/Av\vw.warrenind.com
* 0\l 17
SEG
UcL^ \
Calibration Data Record
Customer Name
Manufacturer
Serial Number
Calibration frequency
Customer Reference Number
/*rs
JZZFJZL.
Item Name
Model
Calibration Date
Job Card Number
Date of Certificate
Measurement Standards
Theodolite WildT-3 5/N 18B01 Calibration 01/19/18 Due 01/19/19 N[STNum5tes33B/229329-S1238fZ23398
Optical Wedge K&E 71-7020 5/N 5167 Calibration; 02/12/14 Due 2/12/19, W5T Number 731/2MPB4-B9 731/121617
Temperature.
2Z
Humidity:
s 7
JLZ*-'Ji—
3 iy
initial Report
r 'g-
I Bboc
~ ~
~
D
\ ane Srn-,g
~ ~
p
~
Drive
~ ~
~
n
Control Knob Assembly
-
~ ~
D
~
Cover Glass
n ~
~
~
'Cover Glass Gasket
~ ~
~
LJ
Camp Screw
~ ~
Q
a
P nion Gear
~ ~
D
~
Cs hi pass F
ing
Final Report
Vanes
Cfci^OSgn
|Der«'i
TateAflCa
lV"rrjtn|
QHfpasr SSescfe £(?w
(M~G7UtKj
Pivot in fine with Orc.-e S'gnts
^^Pass ~ Fail
0
~/- 30
< 3o
Needle
s
45
¦*/- 30
<
Pivot Sharpness
<8"Pass ~ Fal:
90
+/-30
<
Straightness [+/-15 Minutes
S^Pjss ~ Fall
i v.,
V-30
< 3*
Balance
^sss ~ Fall
ISO
+/-30
\3o
lifter Function
I^Fass ~ Fall
225
+/-30
Azimuth Ring
270
+/-30
CJ30
Control Knob Function
i~ Fail
315
+/-30
<30
Pinion Gear"
^':v : ~ Fall
Graduation Clarity
O^sss ~ Fall
Graduation less than 1 minute In any position
ZZTFbss ~ Fail
Level Bubble
Bubble in Level
~ Fail
Physical Condition A
Pass ~ Fail
Certification / /V 'i
Repair technician yv
John Noga, Quality Assurance
/LH>} P>
Ma
Doc templates 2/wk^0-1360 survey compass calibration record
-------
Certificate Number
A2721737
Issue Date: 01/24/18
Certificate of Calibration
p;
Page 1 of
Customer: ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING & MEASUREMENT SERVICES
1128 NW 39TH DRIVE
GAINESVILLE, FL 32605
FEDEX
P.O. Numbed
ID Numb
Description: DIGITAL MULTIMETER
Manufacturer: FLUKE
Model Number: 1S7
Serial Number: 8S59Q148
Technician: JACOB BUDOVSKY
On-Site Calibration: ~
Comments:
Calibration, Date:
Calibration Due:
Procedure:
Temperature:
Humidity:
_UKE 187
Rev: 6/15/2015
73 F
44 % RH
As Found Conditlon IN TOLERANCE
Calibration Results: IN TOLERANCE
Limiting Attribute:!
This instrument has been calibrated using standards traceable to the SI units through the National Institute of Standards and Technology (MIST) or other National
Metrological Institute (NMI). The method of calibration is direct comparison to a known standard, derived from natural physical constants, ratio measurements or
compared to consensus standards.
Reported uncertainties are expressed as expanded uncertainty values at an approximately 95% confidence level using a coverage factor of -" Statements of
compliance are based on test results falling within specified limits with no reduction by the uncertainty of the measurement.
TMi's Quality System is accredited to ISO/1EC 17025:2005 and ANSI/MCSLZ540-M994. ISQ/lEC 17025:2005 is written in a language relevant to laboratory
operations, meeting the principles of ISO 9001 and aligned with its pertinent requirements. This calibration is within the current Scope of Accfecitation and complies
with the requirements of ISO/lEC 17025:2005 and TMI's Quality Manual, QM-1.
Results contained in this document relate only to the item calibrated. Calibration due dales appearing on the certificate or label are determined by the client for
administrative purposes and do not imply continued conformance to specifications.
This certificate shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written permission of Technical Maintenance, Inc.
Measurements not cunently on TMI's Scope of Accreditation are identified with an asterisk.
FRANK BAHMANN. BRANCH MANAGER
Calibration Standards
Asset Number Manufacturer Model Number
5522A/SC1100
Scott Chamberlain, QUALITY MANAGER
3834901
FLUKE
Date Calibrated
4/12/2017
Cal Due
4/12/2018
Tmi
Technical Maintenance, Inc.
Rev 11
7/28/17
12530 TELECOM DRIVE, TEMPLE TERRACE, FL 33637
Phone: 813-978-3054 Fax 813-978-3758
www.trnicalibration.com
ANSl/NCSL Z54Q-1-1994
-------
Certificate Number
A2721741
Issue Date: 01/24/18
Certificate of Calibration
Page 1 of
Customer: ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING & MEASUREMENT SERVICES
1128 NW39TH DRIVE
GAINESVILLE. PL 32605
FEDEX
P.O. Number-
ID Numb
Description: DIGITAL MULTIMETER
Manufacturer: FLUKE
Model Number: 287
Serial Number: 95740135
Technician: JACOB BUDOVSKY
On-Site Calibration: ~
Comments:
Calibration Date
Calibration Due:-
Procedure:
Temperature:
Humidity:
01/24/2018
01/24/2019
lUKE 287
Rev: 6/15/2015
73 F
44 % RH
As Found Condition:IM TOLERANCE
Calibration Results: IN TOLERANCE
Limiting Attribute: |
This instrument has been calibrated using standards traceable to the SI units through the National Institute of Standards and Technology (INSIST) or other National
Metrologicat Institute (NMI). The method of calibration is direct comparison to a known standard, derived from natural physical constants, ratio measurements or
compared to consensus standards.
Reported uncertainties are expressed as expanded uncertainly ualues at an approximately 95% confidence level using a coverage factor of k=2. Statements of
compliance are based on test results falling within specified limits with no reduction by the uncertainly of the measurement.
TMI's Quality System is accredited to ISO/lEC 17025:2005 and ANSI/IMCSL Z540-1-1994. ISO/lEC 17025:2005 is written in a language relevant to laboratory
operations, meeting the principles of ISO 9001 and aligned wilh its pertinent requirements. This calibration is within the current Scope of Accreditation and complies
with the requirements of ISO/lEC 17025:2005 and 1 Mi's Quality Manual, QM-1.
Results contained In this document relate only to the item calibrated. Calibration due dates appearing on the certificate or label are determined by the client for
administrative purposes and do not imply continued conformance to specifications.
This certificate shall not be reproduced, except in Tull, without the written permission of Technical Maintenance, Inc.
Measurements not currently on TMI's Scope of Accreditation are identified with an asterisk.
¦
FRANK BAHMANN, BRANCH MANAGER Scott Chamberlain, QUALITY MANAGER
Calibration Standards
Asset Number Manufacturer Model Number Date Calibrated Cal Due
3834901 FLUKE 5522A/SC1100 4/12/2017 4/12/2018
tMi
Technical Maintenance, Inc.
Rev I!
7/28/17
12530 TELECOM DRIVE, TEMPLE TERRACE, FL 33637
Phone: 813-978-3054 Fax 813-978-3758
www.tmicalibration.com
ANSI/NCSL Z540-1-1994
-------
Certificate Number
A2721757
Issue Date; 01/24/18
Certificate of Calibration
5
Page 1 of _
Customer; ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING & MEASUREMENT SERVICES
1128 NW 39TH DRIVE P-0. Numb
GAINESVILLE, FL 32605 ID Numb
FEDEX
Description; DIGITAL MULTIMETER
Manufacturer: FLUKE
Model Number: 287
Serial Number: 95740243
Technician: JACOB BUDOVSKY
On-Site Calibration: I I
Comments:
Calibration Date:
Calibration Due:
Procedure:
Temperature:
Humidity:
01/24/2018
01/24/2019,
.FLUKE 287
Rev: 6/15/2015
73 F
44 % RH
As Found Condition:IN TOLERANCE
Calibration Results: IN TOLERANCE
Limiting Attribute:1
This instrument has been calibrated using standards traceabie to the SI units through the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) or other National
Metrological, Institute
-------
~
Mesalabs
NVLAP Lab Code 200661-0
CertificateNo. 220139
Calibration Certificate
Sold To:
Product
Serial No.
Cal. Date
Sales Date
200-530+ High Defender 530+ High Flow
15995§~^
21-Feb-2018
28-FeT>2018 Calibration interval commences on sale date.
Environmental Engineering & Measurement
Services
8010 SW 17th Place
Gainesville, FL 32607
US
All calibrations are performed at Mesa Laboratories, Inc., 10 Park Place, Butler, NJ, 07405, an ISO 17025:2005 accredited laboratory
through NVLAP of NIST. This report shall not be reproduced except in full without the written approval of the laboratory. Results only
relate to the items calibrated. This report must not be used to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by NVLAP, NIST, or
any agency of the Federal Government.
Calibration Data
Certificate No
Technician
220139
Zenaida Ortiz
Lab. Pressure
Lab. Temperature
767 mmHg
22.6 "C
Instrument Reading
25678.82 seem
5090.1 seem
1557.48 seem
l/ 22 X
766 mmHg
Lab Standard Reading Deviation
25678.88 seem 0.0%
5112.62 seem -0.44%
1564.08 seem -0.42%
l/ll °C
l/*766 mmHg
Allowable Deviation
1.00%
1.00%
1.00%
± 0.8°C
± 3.5 mmHg
As Shipped
In Tolerance
In Tolerance
In Tolerance
In Tolerance
In Tolerance
Mesa Laboratories Standards Used
Description
ML_800_44
Percision Thermometer
Precision Barometer
Standard Serial Number
101897
305460
2981392
Calibration Date
31 -Jul-2017
28-Sep-2017
20-Jul-2017
Calibration Due Date
31 -Jul-2018
28-Sep-2018
20-Jul-2Q18
-------
~
MesaLabs
a
0
NVLAP Lab Code 200661-0
)
CertificateNo. 241285
Product 200-220H Deflner220 High Flow
Serial No. 122974
Cat. Date -Jui-2018
Calibration Certificate
Sold To:
Environmental Engineering & Measurement
Services
8010 SW 17th Place
Gainesville, Ft 32607
US
All calibrations are performed at Mesa Laboratories, Inc., 10 Park Place, Butler, NJ, 07405, an ISO 17025:2005 accredited laboratory
through NIVLAP of NIST. This report shall not be reproduced except in full without the written approval of the laboratory. Results only
relate to the items calibrated. This report must not be used to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by NVLAP, NtST, or
any agency of the Federal Government.
As Received Calibration Data
Technician
Instrument Reading
25271 seem
5038,9 seem
1507.4 seem
22.8 °C
751 mmHg
Lilianna Malirtowska
Lab Standard Reading
25133 seem
5001.35 seem
1500.8 seem
22.6 °C
750 mmHg
Deviation
0.55%
0,75%
0.44%
Lab, Pressure
Lab, Temperature
750 mmHg
22.7 °C
Allowable Deviation
1.00%
1.00%
1.00%
± 0.8°C
± 3.5 mmHg
As Received
In Tolerance
In Tolerance
In tolerance
In Tolerance
In Tolerance
Mesa Laboratories Standards Used
Description
ML-800-44
Percision Thermometer
Precision Barometer
Standard Serial Number
101897
305460
2981392
Calibration Date
01-May-2018
29-Sep-2017
21-Jul-2017
Calibration Due Date
01-May-2019
29-Sep-2018
21-Jul-2018
(I
1 of 2
Mesa Laboratories Inc. 10 Park Place Butler, NJ 07405 USA
(973) 492-8400 FAX (973) 492-8270 www.mesalabs.com Symbol "MLAETon the WAS
CAL02-48 Rev GQ5
-------
E
MesaLabs
0I<-
[mm
NV/LAP Lab Code 200661-0
As Shipped Calibration Data
Certificate No
Technician
L
241285
Lilian na Malinowska
Instrument Reading
25167 seem
5009.7 seem
1505.6 seem
22.7 °C
758 mmHg
Lab Standard Reading Deviation
25120.5 seem 0.19%
5000.5 seem 0.18%
1500.2 seem 0.36%
22.7 X
758 mmHg
Mesa Laboratories Standards Used
Description
ML-800-44
Percision Thermometer
Precision Barometer
Standard Serial Number
101897
305460
2981392
Lab. Pressure
Lab. Temperature
758 mmHg
22.7 "C
Altowabfe Deviation
1.00%
1.00%
1.00%
± 0.8°C
± 3,5 mmHg
As Shipped
In Tolerance
In Tolerance
In Tolerance
In Tolerance
In Tolerance
Calibration Date
01-May-2018
29-Sep-2017
21*Jul-2017
Calibration Due Date
01-May-2019
29-Sep-2018
21 -Jul-2018
Calibration Notes
The expanded uncertainty of flow, temperature, and pressure measurements all have a coverage factor of k = 2Tor a confidence
interval of approximately 95%.
Flow testing is in accordance with our test number PR18-13 with an expanded uncertainty of 0.18% using high-purity nitrogen or
filtered laboratory air. Flow readings in seem are performed at STP of 21,1*C and 760 mmHg.
Pressure testing is in accordance with our test number PR18-11 with an expanded uncertainty of 0.16 mmHg.
Temperature testing is in accordance with our test number PR18-12 with an expanded uncertainty of 0.04 °C.
Traceability to the International System of Units (SI) is verified by accreditation to ISO/IEC 17025 by NVLAP under NVLAP Code
200661-0.
Technician Notes:
By:
• JVW)
f f
Mohammed Aziz
Director of Engineering
Mesa Laboratories, Inc., Butler, NJ
r\
h
r
7
I, 00 i 7 7
I,
I.
Mesa Laboratories Inc. 10 Park Place Butler, NJ 07405 USA
(973) 492-8400 FAX (973) 492-8270 www.mesalabs.com Symbol "MLAB" on the NAS
CAL02-48 Rev G05
-------
Certification of Bios 01417 with NIST traceable Bios 01416
3/1/2018
01417 :
m = 0.9970
b = -0.1997
EEMS 01416 vs EEMS 01417
MFC Setting
(L/min)
01417 Reading (sl/min)
01416 Flow
(sl/min @ 760
mm Hg/25C)
Curve
Predicted
% error in
curve
prediction
10
9.9989
10.1121
9.769
-3.39%
9
9.3241
8.8570
9.096
2.70%
8
8.1766
7.9793
7.952
-0.34%
7
7.3439
6.9874
7.122
1.93%
6
6.4992
6.1151
6.280
2.70%
5
5.3960
5.2074
5.180
-0.52%
4
4.4549
4.2544
4.242
-0.30%
3
3.4101
3.3295
3.200
-3.88%
Zero MFC Slope
0.9970
Slope
Accuracy
0.9937
Zero MFC Intercept
-0.1997
Intercept
Accuracy
0.0416
-------
Certification of Bios 01421 with NIST traceable Bios 01416
3/1/2018
Bios 01421:
m = 0.9845
b = 0.1030
EEMS 01416 vs EEMS 01421
MFC Setting
(L/min)
01421 Reading (sl/min)
01416 Flow
(sl/min @ 760
mm Hg/25C)
Curve
Predicted
% error in
curve
prediction
9
9.1940
9.0922
9.155
0.69%
8
8.1676
8.2304
8.144
-1.05%
7
7.1663
7.1902
7.158
-0.44%
6
6.2513
6.2382
6.257
0.31%
5
5.2931
5.3034
5.314
0.20%
4
4.3257
4.3216
4.362
0.93%
3
3.3248
3.3366
3.376
1.19%
2
2.2647
2.3865
2.333
-2.26%
Zero MFC Slope
0.9845
Slope
Accuracy
0.9995
Zero MFC Intercept
0.1030
Intercept
Accuracy
0.0028
-------
Field Scientist Certification
Martin VaCvur
Has satisfactorily
The US Environmental
"National Performance Audit Program (NPAP)
Field Scientist Re-certification
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC
Course Dates: April 13-14,2017
uregory w. i\oan
NPAP National Coordinator
USE PA, OAQPS,AAMG
-------
Field Scientist Certification
Eric HeSert
Has satisfactorily
The US Environmental
"National Performance Audit Program (NPAP)
Field Scientist Re-certification
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC
Course Dates: April 13-14,2017
Gregory W. Noah
NPAP National Coordinator
USE PA, OAQPS,AAMG
-------